Freethought & Rationalism Archive

MarkA · 03-27-2008, 02:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkA

Are you asking for proof that first century christians believed there was a link between the classical conceptions of divinity and their beliefs about Jesus?

No, I'm not. I'm asking what their particular conceptions of "divinity" was and whether there is any assertion in the NT of the Chalcedonian formula that Jesus was fully human and divine.

Campbell demonstrates no such thing - and he asserts on the basis of anachronisms.

Moreover, where is his appeal to Sephoris, let alone that Sephoris was a hot bed of Attis and Addonis and Dionysiam worship?

I want to know what the basis of these conclusions are? What are the sources upon which Cambpell makes his claims and when are these sources dated?

No it's not. No more than citing Bulfinch's Mythology or Edith Hamilton's Mythology is sufficient -- since they are paraphrasers and since Campbell and Frazer work from certain apriorri of the Myth and Ritual school that few contemporary experts in mythology view as valid (See Kirk, The Greek Myths, among others).

In other words, just as I suspected, you have no idea what the sources are upon which Cambpell and Frazer base their claims, let alone whether they are accurately and non anachronistically reporting what their sources say.

Thanks for confirming this.

But thats the point at issue. Were the versions of the myths of Adonis and Attis and Dionysius that Campbell outlines ones that were current in the first century? Or has Campbell cobbled together from later versions of these myths into a version that no one knew then?

You have begged the question by assuming -- without evidence --the latter and you have consistently avoided testing your own claim. Why is that?

You do need to do so if you want anyone to accept your claim that in this instance Campbell and Frazer are to be trusted.

Quote:

As for the immaculate conception please refer to my reply to Iasion.

I saw this. And your proof that Jesus was "immaculately conceived" (a theologumen that was not articulated of anyone until the mid 1800s) is an assertion that is derived from a syllogism that is based on a question begging premise that the idea of original sin, especially as it was articulated by Augustine and subsequently by others, was something that first century Christians. let alone all (or any) of the Gospel authors, believed in.

It's rubbish.

Jeffrey

What primary sources does Kirk use to substantiate your claims questioning how the worship of Adonis and Dionysis differed in the first century to any other time? How does his evidence contradict that of Frazer and Campbell exactly and where in his work can this be found?

Please give your primary source evidence for your claim that Campbell is making anachronistic claims. What claims are you talking about exactly? Do you understand what he is saying?

Immaculate Lamb in 1 Peter 1:19 I already quoted to you implies very strongly that the author of at least one gospel regarded Jesus as being without the stain of the Fall later called Original Sin. If you deny that there was any Original Sin what was the point of the Redemption? What was Jesus' sacrifice for according to the gospels or the beliefs of the early christians? Primary sources only please and this time please oblige by quoting them and not secondary ones like Kirk.

Immaculate conception means, whether or not it was defined as Dogma by the Catholic Church in the nineteenth or any other century, that the person was born without the stain of Original Sin. Threfore, since Jesus who was god was born (according to the mythology) by the union between god and a human vessel then the human vessel must have been without sin or the whole concept of saving the human race from sin would be unthinkable.

Moreover, where is his appeal to Sephoris, let alone that Sephoris was a hot bed of Attis and Addonis and Dionysiam worship?

My sentence clearly reads that the Bible narrative demonstrates that Jesus was raised in Nazareth. Are you finding my writing style difficult to follow? If so I apologise and I will attempt to keep to one concept per sentence.

A hot bed of Attis, Adonis and Dionysian worship? Why would it need to be a hot bed of anything? I suspect you are not entirely cognizant of polytheism and how such religious belief structures actually work.

The Bible says Jesus was raised in Nazareth. Nazareth was a short walk (relatively) away from Sepphoris a very important Greco-Roman city in first century Judea. It is inevitable that Jesus would have visited it. When there he would have been exposed to Greco-Roman religious thought. If he was intelleigent as the Bible implies, he would have been influenced by those beliefs. If he was influenced by those beliefs he would have used these in his theology/philosophy. Many writers and thinkers have pondered this and have written about it.

mountainman · 03-27-2008, 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Here is Justin Martyr on the subject in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew :-

'And when he [the devil] brings forward Æsculapius as the raiser of the dead and healer of all diseases, may I not say that in this matter likewise he has imitated the prophecies about Christ?'

But these raisings of the dead are nothing at all parallel with how a Jew would understand the term?

Yet early Christians saw the parallels between Asclepius and Jesus and used them in dialogues with Jews.

I'm confused.

Perhaps Tertullian can shed some light on this?

Quote:

Let the presiding deities of Carthage be put to the test. Let someone be produced who inhales the divine power by sniffing at an altar or cures himself by belching or utters oracles panting, someone who is believed to be possessed by Caelestis or Asclepius. Then let a Christian address him. If Caelestis and Asclepius do not at once confess that they are mere demons, the impudent Christian will deserve to be killed on the spot.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Jeffrey Gibson · 03-27-2008, 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

ABOUT CONSTANTINE's HAMMERING

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

He does? Where?

Quote:

Originally Posted by FOX

Lane Fox posted these quotes here??

Quote:

Persecution of the Old Religions

p.666: "The postscript to his Oration at Antioch was to be rather more robust: torture of pagans "in authority in the city" so that they admitted religious fraud.

p.671: The list of pagan sites to have suffered under Constantine:

Mambre: a site of great holiness in the Hebrew testament

Jerusalem: shrine of Aphrodite, stood on the site of the crucifixion and sepulchre.

Aphaca: an offensive Phoenician centre of sacred prostitution.

Didyma: Christians seized a prophet of Apollo and had him tortured.

Antioch: Christians seized a prophet of Apollo and had him tortured.

Aigai, in Cilicia: christians raised the shrine of Asclepius.

p.672: "In the early 340's, we find the first surviving Christian texts which asks for something more,
the total intolerance of pagan worship." [FN:25] - Firmicus, De Errore 16.4

FOX: "Why were these latter shrines singled out so promptly?

(1) At Aigai, the pagan wise man Apollonius was believed
to have "turned the temple into an Academy":
this temple, or a nearby shrine, had been honoured
with a fine pagan inscription
in honour of "godlike" Apollonius,
perhaps as recently as the reign of Diocletian.

[Editor: This is an intriguing citation.]

(2) Porphyry had compiled books of Philosophy from Oracles
which publicised texts from Didyma.

(3) At Antioch, prophets were duly tortured and obliged to confess "fraud".
These reprisals are the counterpart to two written works by Eusebius,
his polemic against the books on Apollonius and his "Demonstrations of the Gospel,"
which disproved Apollo's oracles by quoting them against themselves.

[Editor: Constantine puts a big scare into the opposition religions.]

p.673: "Constantine, said Eusebius, sent his emmisaries into
"every pagan temple's recess and every gloomy cave." [FN:28] - Eus., V.C. 3.57.4

"Intolerance had never been rooted in the long history of pagan and religious thought.
After Constantine, many pagans could still extend to the new worship
a tolerance which its exclusivity refused to extend to them."

"Eusebius tells how his [Constantine's] agents broke up divine statues
and exhibited their stuffing as mere rubbish." [FN:30] - Eus., V.C. 3.54.6

p.674: The age of Constantine has been aptly described as "age of hiatus":
we can carry this notion to our major theme, the "presence of the gods".

p.679: "In the early fourth century, two aging Christian authors
had shown possible ways of "defusing" the words of the pagan gods.
Eusebius had dismissed them as demonic and used them to refute their authors,
whereas Lactantius had quoted them with Christian improvements
and claimed them as proofs of the Christian faith ... In the first
flush of the "new empire", it must have been on the christians' initiative
that torture was applied to Apollo's prophet at Didyma and to others at Antioch,
"people taken from the magistrates of the city".
They were not humble, ignorant people, Eusebius asserted proudly:
they were people of "wonderful and noble philosophy",
at Antioch civic notables, at Didyma a "prophet and philosopher",
last of the long line of cultured voices who had kept philosophy
running in oracles, the voices of Polites, Theophilus, Macer and
the rest. [FN:48] - Eus. P. Ev. 4.135C-136A.

Philosophic oracles had begun when Apollo's wisdom
advanced with the culture of the prophets.
They ended when christians tortured the prophets.
who had recently helped to torture them too. [ED: DISPUTED]

I note that, save for one. not a single one of the uncontextualized "quotes" from Lane Fox deals with Constnatin'es dealings with the cult of Asclepius. And the one that does, does not support your claim that "Constantine hammered asclepia".
Sloppy scholarship, Pete. Very sloppy indeed.

Quote:

Quote:
And are you going to answer my question of whether Hart misrepresents what Eldlestein & Edlestein say about Asclepius and Asclepius and Jesus? Do you know?

Quote:

It is irrelevant to my series of questions.

In other words, and as I suspected, you don't know. Thanks for confirming this and thanks for showing us the depth of your scholarship.

[QUOTE]

Quote:

As an afterthought, Cosmas and Damian are inventions of a christian forger living after the time of Eusebius, who had to salvage some of the memory of the asclepius tradition and shovel it into the inauthentic forgery of christianity.

Quote:

Does Hart say this? Or the Edlesteins? OR Lane-Fox?

Quote:

Hart supplied the (mainstream) discussion of Cosmas and Damian. The afterthought of that discussion is mine.

So the answer is no.

Quote:

There appear to be at least three different pairs of Saints named Cosmas and Damian known to church history. Do you know who forged their memory
Jeffrey?

Which Cosmas and Damian are you speaking of? And which ever it is, why should I have any reason to believe that "their memory" was forged. Because you say so?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson · 03-27-2008, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkA

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

No, I'm not. I'm asking what their particular conceptions of "divinity" was and whether there is any assertion in the NT of the Chalcedonian formula that Jesus was fully human and divine.

Campbell demonstrates no such thing - and he asserts on the basis of anachronisms.

Moreover, where is his appeal to Sephoris, let alone that Sephoris was a hot bed of Attis and Addonis and Dionysiam worship?

I want to know what the basis of these conclusions are? What are the sources upon which Cambpell makes his claims and when are these sources dated?

No it's not. No more than citing Bulfinch's Mythology or Edith Hamilton's Mythology is sufficient -- since they are paraphrasers and since Campbell and Frazer work from certain apriorri of the Myth and Ritual school that few contemporary experts in mythology view as valid (See Kirk, The Greek Myths, among others).

In other words, just as I suspected, you have no idea what the sources are upon which Cambpell and Frazer base their claims, let alone whether they are accurately and non anachronistically reporting what their sources say.

Thanks for confirming this.

But thats the point at issue. Were the versions of the myths of Adonis and Attis and Dionysius that Campbell outlines ones that were current in the first century? Or has Campbell cobbled together from later versions of these myths into a version that no one knew then?

You have begged the question by assuming -- without evidence --the latter and you have consistently avoided testing your own claim. Why is that?

You do need to do so if you want anyone to accept your claim that in this instance Campbell and Frazer are to be trusted.

I saw this. And your proof that Jesus was "immaculately conceived" (a theologumen that was not articulated of anyone until the mid 1800s) is an assertion that is derived from a syllogism that is based on a question begging premise that the idea of original sin, especially as it was articulated by Augustine and subsequently by others, was something that first century Christians. let alone all (or any) of the Gospel authors, believed in.

It's rubbish.

Jeffrey

What primary sources does Kirk use to substantiate your claims questioning how the worship of Adonis and Dionysis differed in the first century to any other time? How does his evidence contradict that of Frazer and Campbell exactly and where in his work can this be found?

Please give your primary source evidence for your claim that Campbell is making anachronistic claims.

I will as soon as you provided me with the sources (and their dates)that Campell adduces to support the claims he makes about Adonis and Atiis, etc,. that form the basis of his comparison of these figures with Jesus.

Do you or do you not know what these are and their date of origin?

Quote:

Immaculate Lamb in 1 Peter 1:19 I already quoted to you implies very strongly that the author of at least one gospel regarded Jesus as being without the stain of the Fall later called Original Sin.

It does? Can you find any scholarly commentator (i.e., Michaels, Achtemeier, Jobes, Bigg, etc.), or church father who writes on 1 Peter (i.e.. Melito, Clement, etc.), who supports your claim?

More importantly, 1 Peter 1:19 is not an assertion about Jesus or his person. It is comparison (ὡς) of his blood (αἵματι) and its efficacious power to ransom "Peter's" (Gentile) community ἐκ τῆς ματαίας ὑμῶν ἀναστροφῆς πατροπαραδότου with the blood of a lamb which is described not as "immaculate", let alone free from the stain of sin, but as physically unblemished (Ἄμωμος) and unspotted (ἀσπίλου).

So I am afraid that when it comes to your familiarity with, and knowledge and understanding of, the primary sources upon which you base your claims, you are claiming a competency that you demonstrably do not possess.

Jeffrey

andrewcriddle · 03-27-2008, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkA

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

It may be worth noting that the resurrection of Asclepius seems rather late in the tradition. (Ovid may be our earliest surviving witness.) In the original versions Asclepius is killed by Zeus, Apollo takes revenge for the killing of his son and suffers for it.

The idea of Asclepius being resurrected seems to be a Hellenistic mechanical reworking of the story in order to reconcile the story of Asclepius the (living) God with that of Asclepius the (dead) Hero.

Andrew Criddle

Thank you for that Andrew.

I was unaware Ovid may be the earliest primary source for this part of the myth. If so this is interesting in that the span of his life (43 bce - 17/18ce) coincides with any possible influence this change (if indeed it is a change or simply a reiteration of earlier traditions) may have had on the development of a mythological link between Jesus and Asclepius.

Hi Mark

The story is almost certainly older than Ovid. We have claims in 2nd century AD writers that an early Hellenistic writer referred to Zeus making Asclepius into a constellation, which appears a related idea.

However the idea of the resuurection of Asclepius does only seems to become prominent in the Imperial period.

Andrew Criddle

MarkA · 03-27-2008, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkA

What primary sources does Kirk use to substantiate your claims questioning how the worship of Adonis and Dionysis differed in the first century to any other time? How does his evidence contradict that of Frazer and Campbell exactly and where in his work can this be found?

Please give your primary source evidence for your claim that Campbell is making anachronistic claims.

I will as soon as you provided me with the sources (and their dates)that Campell adduces to support the claims he makes about Adonis and Atiis, etc,. that form the basis of his comparison of these figures with Jesus.

Do you or do you not know what these are and their date of origin?

Quote:

Immaculate Lamb in 1 Peter 1:19 I already quoted to you implies very strongly that the author of at least one gospel regarded Jesus as being without the stain of the Fall later called Original Sin.

It does? Can you find any scholarly commentator (i.e., Michaels, Achtemeier, Jobes, Bigg, etc.), or church father who writes on 1 Peter (i.e.. Melito, Clement, etc.), who supports your claim?

More importantly, 1 Peter 1:19 is not an assertion about Jesus or his person. It is comparison (ὡς) of his blood (αἵματι) and its efficacious power to ransom "Peter's" (Gentile) community ἐκ τῆς ματαίας ὑμῶν ἀναστροφῆς πατροπαραδότου with the blood of a lamb which is described not as "immaculate", let alone free from the stain of sin, but as physically unblemished (Ἄμωμος) and unspotted (ἀσπίλου).

So I am afraid that when it comes to your familiarity with, and knowledge and understanding of, the primary sources upon which you base your claims, you are claiming a competency that you demonstrably do not possess.

Jeffrey

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkA Quote:Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson No, I'm not. I'm asking what their particular conceptions of "divinity" was and whether there is any assertion in the NT of the Chalcedonian formula that Jesus was fully human and divine.Campbell demonstrates no such thing - and he asserts on the basis of anachronisms.Moreover, where is his appeal to Sephoris, let alone that Sephoris was a hot bed of Attis and Addonis and Dionysiam worship?I want to know what the basis of these conclusions are? What are the sources upon which Cambpell makes his claims and when are these sources dated?No it's not. No more than citing Bulfinch's Mythology or Edith Hamilton's Mythology is sufficient -- since they are paraphrasers and since Campbell and Frazer work from certain apriorri of the Myth and Ritual school that few contemporary experts in mythology view as valid (See Kirk, The Greek Myths, among others).In other words, just as I suspected, you have no idea what the sources are upon which Cambpell and Frazer base their claims, let alone whether they are accurately and non anachronistically reporting what their sources say.Thanks for confirming this.But thats the point at issue. Were the versions of the myths of Adonis and Attis and Dionysius that Campbell outlines ones that were current in the first century? Or has Campbell cobbled together from later versions of these myths into a version that no one knew then?You have begged the question by assuming -- without evidence --the latter and you have consistently avoided testing your own claim. Why is that? You do need to do so if you want anyone to accept your claim that in this instance Campbell and Frazer are to be trusted.I saw this. And your proof that Jesus was "immaculately conceived" (a theologumen that was not articulated of anyone until the mid 1800s) is an assertion that is derived from a syllogism that is based on a question begging premise that the idea of original sin, especially as it was articulated by Augustine and subsequently by others, was something that first century Christians. let alone all (or any) of the Gospel authors, believed in.It's rubbish.Jeffrey
What primary sources does Kirk use to substantiate your claims questioning how the worship of Adonis and Dionysis differed in the first century to any other time? How does his evidence contradict that of Frazer and Campbell exactly and where in his work can this be found?Please give your primary source evidence for your claim that Campbell is making anachronistic claims.

I will as soon as you provided me with the sources (and their dates)that Campell adduces to support the claims he makes about Adonis and Atiis, etc,. that form the basis of his comparison of these figures with Jesus.

Do you or do you not know what these are and their date of origin?

Quote:
Immaculate Lamb in 1 Peter 1:19 I already quoted to you implies very strongly that the author of at least one gospel regarded Jesus as being without the stain of the Fall later called Original Sin.
It does? Can you find any scholarly commentator (i.e., Michaels, Achtemeier, Jobes, Bigg, etc.), or church father who writes on 1 Peter (i.e.. Melito, Clement, etc.), who supports your claim?

More importantly, 1 Peter 1:19 is not an assertion about Jesus or his person. It is comparison (ὡς) of his blood (αἵματι) and its efficacious power to ransom "Peter's" (Gentile) community ἐκ τῆς ματαίας ὑμῶν ἀναστροφῆς πατροπαραδότου with the blood of a lamb which is described not as "immaculate", let alone free from the stain of sin, but as physically unblemished (Ἄμωμος) and unspotted (ἀσπίλου).

So I am afraid that when it comes to your familiarity with, and knowledge and understanding of, the primary sources upon which you base your claims, you are claiming a competency that you demonstrably do not possess.

Jeffrey

1 Peter clearly refers to Jesus as Immaculate Lamb. Are you claiming the word has been incorrectly translated? What do you think immaculate means? Ransom the Gentile church from who or what? From SIN of course. Again how is that to be done if the blood of the redeeming agent is not free from sin?

According to you the passage is not about Jesus but his blood? What are you talking about? The blood is the central issue and it belongs to – Jesus! I take it the blood of Jesus is not part of Jesus is your position?

Your petulant insistence of my providing primary sources for works by accepted and trustworthy authors is a tactic I have noticed you use with boring regularity here. If you dispute the claims by these authors then your obligation is to provide the evidence that refutes them. Stop trying to reverse the onus of proof.

Jeffrey Gibson · 03-27-2008, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkA

Sigh.

I take it, that in addition to not knowing what sources Campbell bases his claims upon, let alone whether he has fudged them, you have never consulted a commentary on 1 Peter, and that you also don't read Greek.

In the light of this, further exchanges with you are pointless.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey

mountainman · 03-29-2008, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

ABOUT CONSTANTINE's HAMMERING

Quote:

Persecution of the Old Religions

p.666: "The postscript to his Oration at Antioch
was to be rather more robust: torture of pagans
"in authority in the city" so that they admitted
religious fraud.

I note that, save for one. not a single one of the uncontextualized "quotes" from Lane Fox deals with Constnatin'es dealings with the cult of Asclepius. And the one that does, does not support your claim that "Constantine hammered asclepia". Sloppy scholarship, Pete. Very sloppy indeed.

I have already admitted that the temples of Asclepius were only one of a number of cults operative at well established centures in the eastern empire c.324 CE. The citations provided in Fox and elsewhere reveal the ancient temples were hammered, and in some cases (such as Pergumun) removed in total entirety. This was still going on centuries after (more gently ... ???)

Dionysios Kalamakis
AESTHETIC APPROACH OF BYZANTINE ART.
BETWEEN THE EAST AND THE WEST
http://www.nis.org.yu/byzantium/doc/...0Kalamakis.pdf.

Quote:

In the middle of the 6th century AD, the sanctuary of Asclepius in Athens
was demolished and with its building materials was erected, on the same location,
the palaeo-Christian basilica with three aisles, narthex and atrium. The
ancient fountain was probably converted into a baptistery and the church was
devoted to Christ Savior, and later to the saints Cosmas and Damian, thus ensuring
a continuation of sorts, since the two saints were known for their healing
powers.

Quote:

And are you going to answer my question of whether Hart misrepresents what Eldlestein & Edlestein say about Asclepius and Asclepius and Jesus? Do you know?

It is irrelevant to my series of questions.

In other words, and as I suspected, you don't know. Thanks for confirming this and thanks for showing us the depth of your scholarship.

I am not here to decide whether or not Hart misrepresents what Eldlestein & Edlestein say about Asclepius and Asclepius and Jesus. I have merely reported the observation made by the author Hart in his recent book. I have read many comparisons between figures here, but not the one so strikingly presented by Hart. However this is all digression.

The primary role of Eldlestein & Edlestein are to demonstrate the astounding statistical abundance of the ancient historical record in the citations available to the followers of the (pagan) healing god Asclepius, and the corresponding set of citations for the followers of the (christian) healing god Jesus. The order of magnitude we are dealing with is at least one hundred to one. The work of Eldlestein & Edlestein simply serves to identify a citation study source for the Asclepian set.

Quote:

As an afterthought, Cosmas and Damian are inventions of a christian forger living after the time of Eusebius, who had to salvage some of the memory of the asclepius tradition and shovel it into the inauthentic forgery of christianity.

Quote:
Does Hart say this? Or the Edlesteins? OR Lane-Fox?

Quote:
Hart supplied the (mainstream) discussion of Cosmas and Damian. The afterthought of that discussion is mine.

So the answer is no.

Quote:
There appear to be at least three different pairs of Saints named Cosmas and Damian known to church history. Do you know who forged their memory
Jeffrey?

Which Cosmas and Damian are you speaking of? And which ever it is, why should I have any reason to believe that "their memory" was forged. Because you say so?

Chief suspect: Theodoret (c. 393 AD – c. 457 AD)
was an influential author, theologian,
and Christian bishop of Cyrrhus, Syria (423 AD-457 AD).

He played a pivotal role in many early Byzantine church controversies
that led to various ecumenical acts and schisms.

Can you find an earlier source?

Butler's Lives of the Saints By Alban Butler, Paul Burns

Quote:

p.239

Cosmas and Damian are preeminent among those saints whose legend
extends far beyond anything that can ever be known about them for
certain. Earliest reference appears to be the Bishop Theodoret of
Cyrrhus (d.458 CE).

Twin brothers born in Arabia, went to study sciences in Syria.
Once qualified they were to Aegae on the bay of Alexandretta in
Cilicia. Here they practiced medicine without accepting fees
and were widely known "as christians". Beheaded by Diocletian.
Legends are enhanced by numerous accounts of miracles and other
marvels.

Cult of C&D first reached Rome under Symmachus (498-514 CE).
Introduced into an oratory near the basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore.
Pope Felix (526-30 CE) translated relics to a newly built basilica.
From there the cult spread.

They went to Aegae to learn healing? Hello?
Because Theodoret told us?
I'd like to know it there is an earlier source.
DO you know of one?

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Jeffrey Gibson · 03-30-2008, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I have already admitted that the temples of Asclepius were only one of a number of cults operative at well established centures in the eastern empire c.324 CE. The citations provided in Fox and elsewhere reveal the ancient temples were hammered, and in some cases (such as Pergumun) removed in total entirety. This was still going on centuries after (more gently ... ???)

The data from Lane Fox that you present us with (in selective quotations) shows only that the temples "hammered" (a word, BTW, that Lane Fox does not use) were those of Apollo, not Asclepius. And FWIW, Lane Fox does not support any claim that Asclepius had temples.

Once again, Pete, you have failed to support your claim that Constantine "hammered" the "Asclepia".

Quote:

I am not here to decide whether or not Hart misrepresents what Eldlestein & Edlestein say about Asclepius and Asclepius and Jesus.

So, you don't know whether Hart does or not. That's what I thought. Thanks for confirming this.

Quote:

I have merely reported the observation made by the author Hart in his recent book.

You did more than this. You pointed to the fact that Hart uses E.& E. inordet to claim that what Hart reports in the bits of his book that you have read online is trustworthy.

Quote:

I have read many comparisons between figures here, but not the one so strikingly presented by Hart.

Yes, its striking alright -- strikingly bad. Not only does he misrepresent what E & E have said and concluded in this regard; he cooks his evidence about Asclepius and Jesus in order to prove an apriori.

So once again, you have shown a profound inability to discern good sources/arguments from bad ones and you have once again declared something as good not because it is, but because it says what you want to hear.

Quote:

The primary role of Eldlestein & Edlestein are to demonstrate the astounding statistical abundance of the ancient historical record in the citations available to the followers of the (pagan) healing god Asclepius, and the corresponding set of citations for the followers of the (christian) healing god Jesus.

Is this what they themselves say is their primary role? If so, where exactly in their book do they say this? And what exactly do they say? Give us the page number and the quote, please.

Quote:

The order of magnitude we are dealing with is at least one hundred to one.

Really? And your evidence for this is what?

Quote:

The work of Eldlestein & Edlestein simply serves to identify a citation study source for the Asclepian set.

I ask again, have you actually read E. & E? (At first, you didn't even seem to know that Asclepius: A Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies had two authors).

Quote:

Chief suspect: Theodoret (c. 393 AD – c. 457 AD)
was an influential author, theologian,
and Christian bishop of Cyrrhus, Syria (423 AD-457 AD).

He played a pivotal role in many early Byzantine church controversies
that led to various ecumenical acts and schisms.

Can you find an earlier source?

Not my job. You are the one who is making claims about Cosmas & Damien.

Quote:

Butler's Lives of the Saints By Alban Butler, Paul Burns

Quote:

p.239

Cosmas and Damian are preeminent among those saints whose legend
extends far beyond anything that can ever be known about them for
certain. Earliest reference appears to be the Bishop Theodoret of
Cyrrhus (d.458 CE).

Twin brothers born in Arabia, went to study sciences in Syria.
Once qualified they were to Aegae on the bay of Alexandretta in
Cilicia. Here they practiced medicine without accepting fees
and were widely known "as christians". Beheaded by Diocletian.
Legends are enhanced by numerous accounts of miracles and other
marvels.

Cult of C&D first reached Rome under Symmachus (498-514 CE).
Introduced into an oratory near the basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore.
Pope Felix (526-30 CE) translated relics to a newly built basilica.
From there the cult spread.

They went to Aegae to learn healing? Hello?

Umm, what? Where does Butler (whose Lives of the Saints appeared in 1779-1780) say that C & D went to Aegae "to learn" anything, let alone healing?

Once again, Pete, you show yourself unable not only to read correctly the sources you appeal to, but to represent correctly what they actually say.

Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.

Jeffrey

mountainman · 03-30-2008, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I have already admitted that the temples of Asclepius were only one of a number of cults operative at well established centures in the eastern empire c.324 CE. The citations provided in Fox and elsewhere reveal the ancient temples were hammered, and in some cases (such as Pergumun) removed in total entirety. This was still going on centuries after (more gently ... ???)

The data from Lane Fox that you present us with (in selective quotations) shows only that the temples "hammered" (a word, BTW, that Lane Fox does not use) were those of Apollo, not Asclepius. And FWIW, Lane Fox does not support any claim that Asclepius had temples. Once again, Pete, you have failed to support your claim that Constantine "hammered" the "Asclepia".

Barnes and Bradbury write on Constantine's prohibition of pagan sacrifice, and the specifics of temple destruction by COnstantine. Constantine hammered all the temples, which obviously also included some of the more prestigous asclepia. Have we not already been through the Eusebius admission?

Quote:

Eusebius VC 56: Destruction of the Temple of Aesculapius at Aegae. - FOR since a wide-spread error of these pretenders to wisdom concerned the demon worshiped in Cilicia, whom thousands regarded with reverence as the possessor of saving and healing power, who sometimes appeared to those who passed the night in his temple, sometimes restored the diseased to health, though on the contrary he was a destroyer of souls, who drew his easily deluded worshipers from the true Saviour to involve them in impious error, the emperor, consistently with his practice, and desire to advance the worship of him who is at once a jealous God and the true Saviour, gave directions that this temple also should be razed to the ground. In prompt obedience to this command, a band of soldiers laid this building, the admiration of noble philosophers, prostrate in the dust, together with its unseen inmate, neither demon nor god, but rather a deceiver of souls, who had seduced mankind for so long a time through various ages. And thus he who had promised to others deliverance from misfortune and distress, could find no means for his own security, any more than when, as is told in myth, he was scorched by the lightning's stroke. (2) Our emperor's pious deeds, however, had in them nothing fabulous or feigned; but by virtue of the manifested power of his Saviour, this temple as well as others was so utterly overthrown, that not a vestige of the former follies was left behind.

Quote:

So, you don't know whether Hart does or not. That's what I thought. Thanks for confirming this.

You pointed to the fact that Hart uses E.& E. inordet to claim that what Hart reports in the bits of his book that you have read online is trustworthy.

Yes, its striking alright -- strikingly bad. Not only does he misrepresent what E & E have said and concluded in this regard; he cooks his evidence about Asclepius and Jesus in order to prove an apriori.

So once again, you have shown a profound inability to discern good sources/arguments from bad ones and you have once again declared something as good not because it is, but because it says what you want to hear.

Here is another author saying something from the history of medicine:

Asklepios: Ancient Hero of Medical Caring - James E. Bailey

Quote:

As the Edelsteins [48] point out, it is little wonder that Asklepios presented formidable competition to the emerging worship of Jesus Christ in the Roman Empire. Jesus is emphasized in the early gospels as a physician, healer, and savior, with a particular interest in the poor and destitute. Asklepios and Christ are similarly described as blameless. Church fathers found little to criticize in the life of Asklepios on earth. As he is described during this period, Asklepios is likened to the god of the New Testament [49]; he was viewed as provident, and he forgave any offense because of his devotion to mankind [50]. Individual Greeks and Romans often believed in the god Asklepios because of the powerful cures demonstrated at his temples. Even Galen (circa 129 to 210 AD) became a devoted follower of Asklepios because he was healed at the god's temple and was assisted in cures through Asklepios's appearance in his dreams [3, 51].

Quote:

The primary role of Eldlestein & Edlestein are to demonstrate the astounding statistical abundance of the ancient historical record in the citations available to the followers of the (pagan) healing god Asclepius, and the corresponding set of citations for the followers of the (christian) healing god Jesus.

Is this what they themselves say is their primary role? If so, where exactly in their book do they say this? And what exactly do they say? Give us the page number and the quote, please.

See below.

Quote:

The order of magnitude we are dealing with is at least one hundred to one.

Really? And your evidence for this is what?

Let's simply start with ancient architectural citations - for buildings and shrines and other such monumental archaeological evidence available against these two sets of followers: ones of Asclepius and ones of Jesus in the prenicene epoch ...

Even if we simply started with 2nd century author Pausanius' citations to the existence of the followers of the healing god Asclepius in his Descriptions of Greece we have (according to THEOI) at least 59 Asclepius temples and/or shrines:

ABIA Village in Messenia,
AIGAI Town in Kilikia ,
AIGINA Chief Town of Aigina,
AIGION Town in Akhaia,
ALEXANDRIA Chief City of Ptolemaic Egypt (Greek Colony),
ALIPHERA Village in Arkadia,
ARGOS Chief City of Argolis,
ASOPOS Village in Lakedaimonia,
ATHENS Chief City of Attika,
AULON Village in Messenia,
BALAGRAI Village in Kyrenaia in Libya (Greek Colony),
BOIAI Village in Lakedaimonia,
ELATEIA Village in Phokis,
EPIDAUROS LIMERA Village in Lakedaimonia,
EPIDAUROS Town in Argolis,
ERYTHRAI Town in Ionia / Lydia,
GERENIA Village in Messenia,
GORTYNA Village in Elis,
GORTYS Village in Arkadia,
GYTHEATAI Village in Lakedaimonia,
HYPSOI Village in Lakedaimonia,
KAOUS Village in Arkadia,
KLEITOR Village in Arkadia,
KORINTHOS Chief City of Korinthia,
KORONE Village in Messenia,
KOS Island in the South-Eastern Aegean,
KYLLENE Village in Ellis,
KYPHANTA Village in Lakedaimonia,
LEBENE Village in Krete,
LEUKTRA Village in Lakedaimonia,
LOUSIOS River in Arkadia,
MANTINEIA Town in Arkadia,
MEGALOPOLIS Chief City of Arkadia,
MEGARA Chief City of Megaris,
MELAINAI Village in the Troad,
MESSENE Chief City of Messenia,
MT ILIOS Mountain in Lakedaimonia,
NAUPAKTOS Town in Ozolian Lokris,
NEAR MEGARA,
Near SAUROS Hill in Elis,
OLENOS City in Akhaia,
OLYMPIA Village & Sanctuary in Elis,
PARAKYPARISSION Village in Lakedaimonia,
PATRAI Chief City of Akhaia,
PELLENA Village in Lakedaimonia,
PELLENE Town in Akhaia,
PERGAMON Chief City of Teuthrania,
PHLIOUS Town in Sikyonia,
ROME Chief City of Latium,
SIKYON Chief City of Sikyonia,
SMYRNA City in Aiolis / Lydia,
SPARTA Chief City of Lakedaimonia,
TANAGRA Town in Boiotia,
TEGEA City in Arkadia,
THELPOUSA Village in Arkadia,
THERAI Village in Lakedaimonia,
TITANE Village in Sikyonia,
TITHOREA Village in Phokis,
TRIKKE Town in Histiaiotis in Thessalia

What do we have as citations from the followers of Jesus?
Well, some have argued we have a house-church At Dura-Europa.
And there the similarities end rather abruptly.
The basilicas of the fourth century then dominated.

As Robert Price once summarised:

If [Jesus] existed, he is forever lost
behind the stained glass curtain of holy myth".

Quote:

The work of Eldlestein & Edlestein simply serves to identify a citation study source for the Asclepian set.

I ask again, have you actually read E. & E? (At first, you didn't even seem to know that Asclepius: A Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies had two authors).

Dear Jeffrey,

One of your professions, if you dont mind me trying to make assessments on the fly without too much research, is the classical languages, which I must say, I do admire. Inter-disciplinary issues are emergent in all fields, and BC&H is not insular in this regard. No one field has all the answers nor should it be expected to --- IMHO. One of my professions, if you dont mind me representing myself against your invectives, is related to databases, and when I wrote above "The work of Eldlestein & Edlestein simply serves to identify a citation study source for the Asclepian set" I must have been wearing my database hat, in distinction to your "classicist hat". Service oriented and secondary though it may be, I was referring to a database of citations.

To summarise the most pointed of your challenges to the data:

Asklepios: Ancient Hero of Medical Caring - James E. Bailey

Quote:

As the Edelsteins [48] point out, it is little wonder that Asklepios presented formidable

competition to the emerging worship of Jesus Christ in the Roman Empire.

Here we have another author claiming that the Edelsteins actually do make a reference to the comparison between two of these (myriad) healing traditions of antiquity. Inter-disciplinary in the sense that the field of these publications is medical history. The church via the holy saints Cosmas and Damian held the foundations of medical traditions until the reformation at which time Asclepius returned --- to that field --- in at least an emblematic sense.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.