Malachi151

Except that you are quoting from two different books which may not even be written by the same person in fact, or which could have been written 20 years apart after many changes in view, etc., and besides, Galatians is still pretty darn vague, especially since the writer then goes on to talk about parables and allegory and symbolism.

Apikorus

The fact that the Qur'an was written some 600 years later means that it is not a primary source. It is a very late source, embodying traditions which developed over centuries, and is of no value to the historical Jesus enterprise.

For years history texts portrayed Moses as an historical figure, yet we have not a shred of historical evidence for Moses -- no more that we have for Odysseus. If you believe that there was an historical Jesus (and I tend to believe so), your argument should adduce primary sources, assessing their reliability, comparing and contrasting their accounts, and situating them within the known historical context of first century CE Palestine. Many scholars have attempted to do just this. None of them, to my knowledge, invokes the Qur'an.

jgibson000

Many hundreds?:huh:

Can you please tell me on what source or sources you base your claim that there were "many hundreds" of mystery religions in the first century? Do you know of any scholars of the "mysteries" (e.g. Burkett, Klauck, Fergusson, Vermasseren, etc.) who'd suppoirt your claim?

And what is your evidence that any Jewish community in the diapspora "entertained" any "mystery religion"?

Moreover, what is the basis for your claim that the Baptizer's movement was grounded, as you say it is, in a mixture of "mysteries", Greek paganism, and Jewish ideas and that the movement would have been as widely known as you seem to say it was? What scholarship on nature and content and origin and thrust and dissemination of the Baptizer's movent have you read?

JG

Malachi151

http://home.earthlink.net/~pgwhacker...mysteries.html

Use google:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...ianity&spell=1

http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/...=all&bookset=2

jgibson000

Ah. So your research is primarily limited to what you find on the web? And the particular source for your claim about the number of "mystery religions" that were in existence in the first century is the "pagan christs" page? What makes you think that this page is in any way trustworthy?

He does, does he? Funny, but having read Burkett's Greek Religion (or via: amazon.co.uk) and his Ancient Mystery Cults (or via: amazon.co.uk), I don't recall him ever saying any such thing. But maybe I missed it. So could you please give me the exact place within the particular book or work of Burkett where he makes this estimate? Or do you yourself not know?

Are you certain that your source is not confusing the # of ancient cult centers that have been discoverd with the number of actual mystery religons in existence in the first century?

And may I have your answers to the other questions I asked you?

In case you need to be reminded, they were:

What is your evidence that any Jewish community in the diapspora "entertained" any "mystery religion"?

What is the basis for your claim that the Baptizer's movement was grounded, as you say it is, in a mixture of "mysteries", Greek paganism, and Jewish ideas and that the movement would have been as widely known as you seem to say it was? What scholarship (not web pages) on the nature and content and origin and thrust and dissemination of the Baptizer's movent have you read?

And for the record, pointing me to web pages is not answering my questions.

Jeffrey Gibson

Malachi151

Ummmm.... no, the links that I can provide on the web, have to come FROM THE FUCKING WEB! Shall I link my hardcover book to you?

And, by the way I'm not replying to any more of your stupid posts either,. If I see something that I am not sure about I research it myself I don't badger the poster. Try doing some reading on your own for a change.

jgibson000

Well of course they do (I think), though I'd suggest that you'd be better served by not using porno sites as the main source of the links that you provide.

But how what you write above is an answer to my questions of (1) whether or not you do most of your "research" on the web and (2) whether or not you primarily gather from the web, rather than from books and articles in professional journals, the data you use as "evidence" for your claims", is beyond me. Do you or do you not do most of your research on the web? Is the data that you use as "evidence" for your claims primarily derived from web pages, or not?

If you want to, especially since, as your sentence implies, you have only one of these. But please note that what I asked for was only page numbers and bibliographical citations of books, not whole books, let alone links to web pages.

Suit yourself. But I'd be grateful if you could tell me why -- as well as show me how -- my posts are "stupid".

Why is asking for evidence, and how well acquainted you are with the actual scholarship on the topics you are making claims about, "stupid" -- especially when there is reason to doubt the validity of your claims and that there are indications that your claims are not well researched and/or are not supported by scholarship? Seems to me that this is the very opposite of "stupid".

How commendable. But the issue is not whether, if I see something I'm not sure about, I'm then adverse to do research. It's the question of whether or not you have support for the claims you make and whether you can back up what you claim.

I'm not sure why you think I haven't -- especially on the matters and in the works of the authors you are making claims about and in the relevant scholarly literature and primary source material. The question is whether you have done the reading that you imply you have done in these materials rather than in summarizations of them.

So I ask again, in the light of the fact that I have read Burkett and that I did not find him making the claim you attributed to him: Where in his works does Burkett make the assertion that there were 600 or so mystery religions in the first century?

Perhaps your unwllingness to tell me is due not only to what appears to be the fact that you yourself haven't read Burkett, but that youare reluctant to discover whether or not the source you relied for your claim about what Burkett said is telling the truth. To find out that it hasn't would undermine both your case and your confidence in the truth of your understanding of, and your claims about, the origins of Christianity.

JG

gurugeorge

If it's stupid, it's stupid because this is just a forum, not a scholars' seminar. He made a claim; all one can expect him to do, out of politeness, is to give you some reasons why he makes the claim. Burkert is a pretty good authority in that field (indeed you named him yourself, although you misspelled his name), so it's reasonable for Malachi to believe that there were hundreds of mystery religions - i.e. he's done as much as etiquette demands, and responded to your call to back up his claim. So, notwithstanding your unsubtle implication that he's in dereliction of duty to reason not back up his assertion armed with the entire panoply of historical and NT scholarship, whether he wants to go into the thing in more detail is up to him, not for you to badger him about.

There are people of all levels of interest, intelligence and scholarly training here, it's not really a specialist forum, it's for scholarly types and laypeople to mix and exchange ideas.

Chris Weimer

I don't get this. Why would anyone think that they're somehow above the demands of the scholastic field, but then expect to be taken seriously by the scholastic field. This is the exact same line of reasoning that fraudulent Christian creationists use, i.e. "the majority of scholarship says one thing, and I only got this article and this website and that should cut it."

Bullshit. Even the moderators here have requested that Malachi step up to the bat. If he cannot provide the accurate sources, then he has no business here making these ludicrous claims in the first place. If it were the other way around, i.e. a Christian coming here saying that it's a fact that Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark, and cited Christian scholars, then there's no way in hell any one of you would let them get away with it. In fact, many here have taken joy in tearing apart their pathetic arguments. Malachi's pathetic arguments get no sympathy from me, nor from anyone in the scholastic community.

jgibson000

That's obvious. But I fail to see how this shows that what I posted was "stupid" or, more importantly, why this excuses anyone who makes a claim from providing evidence in support of it when asked to do so, especially when they pose, as "Malachi151"(groan) does, as someone whose claims are well researched and on par in authority with those of scholar.

Ha. So has both the website that "Malachi151" relied on for his claim about Burkert, as did "Malachi151" himself!

But he hasn't done what "etiquette" demands, especially since, to my knowledge, our poster has not actually consulted Burkert but still wants us to accept that what he says with respect to Burkert is true, since Burkert has not made the claim that has been attributed to him, and since what I asked our poster to do was to show me, in the light of his specific claim about what Burkert allegedly said, that there was actually evidence from Burkert himself, not from a web page that makes an undocumented claim about Burkert, to the contrary.

And given the panpolply of errors and bad scholarship on the web page that the M man has culled for his "evidence" that scholars support his claims (not to mention that page's refusal to give bilbliographical data for the claims of scholars appealed to there, and its demonstrable mis-representation of what scholars have said on the mysteries and dying and rising gods), it isn't reasonable at all for Malichi151 to believe that there were hundreds of mystery religions. It shows sheer gullibity and an inability to know what's good and bad on the web.

In any case, you might be interested to know that your assement of what this forum is, as well as what those posting to it are obliged to do when they make a claim, is not something that is supoorted by the moderators.

Here's what one of the moderators said to "Malichi151" when he was pulling the same sort of stunt he's doing now to avoid admitting, in reference to his claims about something on another thread, he didn't know what he was talking about and that he didn't have the grounding in the material in question that he was implying he did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malachi151 View Post
I'm not the only one who holds this opinion, in fact I thought it was commonly accepted, which is why I simply stated it.

Please identify some scholars who also hold this opinion.

Quote:
I didn't think of it as controversial, and it wasn't the objective of my post.

Regardless of the importance you place on the claim, you did make it and should not complain if asked to support it. Given how commonly held you consider it, doing so should not be difficult.

Claimants are expected to be able to support all their claims. This isn't the kiddie pool, amigo.

JG