keyser_soze

SECONDED!

keyser_soze

Actually, I recommended an entire saltlick for the topic book...

Is it worth muddling through? Not to me. But should we dismiss ANY source of all it's parts, because some of it's parts are ridiculous? I just couldn't see you being that way is all. I couldn't even make through page 40 of the book in question....does that mean it is without value? I dunno. The older I get, the more I realize that everything I read has some value...

Vinnie

I'm not that way. Let's frame that action in different terms:

-----------------
-----------------
A person makes two arguments (argument A and argument B) which are not interconnected in such a way that one has an impact on the other.

Suppose I demonstrated conclusively that argument A is false.

Therefore, I am justified in concluding that argument B is false as well.
-----------------
-----------------


Something like that is too basic to fall victim to

Vinnie

keyser_soze

Not a trick question, I just find that you use so many sources, even while seemingly disagreeing with some of them, that you would habitually find the valuable portions in a book, even if you disagreed with the majority.

triplew00t

As I said, as an overview of Gnostic ideas, it is not half bad. I agree that Pagel's work is much more in depth and historical. I still hold to my argument, dispite your scoffing, that this work is still interesting as a start. No one just dives into ideas and instantly becomes an expert. It is a process. And while The Jesus Mysteries is by far a beginner's text, it should not be dismissed outright as unuseful to any and everyone, and as being void of any ideas worth thinking about, dispite its lack of historical reliability.


-Nero

Bede

Nero,

I must fundamentally disagree with you. The writers of a beginners text are under a greater duty to get their facts right than someone whose readers might be expected to spot their errors. Most of Freke and Gandy's readers have no idea when they are saying something untrue and when, occasionally, they get something right. Would you suggest an uninformed text, supporting creationism, that happened to correctly state a few correct facts as an introductory text on evolutionary biology? I think not. The fact that Pagels is available means there is no need to even recommend it as a primer on gnosticism (as they get most of that wrong too).

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

EarthGirl

Right! I think that this book sparks a desire for a person who was raised a Christian (like myself) to look into the facts. Anyone who has half of an open mind but was not given the freedom to think outside the box, might find this book to be a good beginning.

It is a good place to start because many, many Christians are not even aware that there might be other possibilities. This book was most certainly a trigger which has escentially snowballed to the point where I have completely let go of Christianity.

Do you think that the problem that people have w/this book is the theory? I know that this was my problem w/it. The authors seemed to have drawn too many conclusions w/not enough evidence at all to back them up.

triplew00t

I agree. The writers went too far with their conclusions, far beyond what would be supported by the evidence they found. As for a Gnostic primer, I still disagree with the idea that it is poor, as spirituality and religion are not cut and dry, as biology and chemistry are. Religion involves a walking-away process, that this book set off for me a few years ago. I, I reiterate, am not saying its worth much as historical information. I am saying its valuable as a start to , as EarthGirl said, further investigation into possibilities.

The problem is that Earth and I are looking at it as the standpoint of utility to uncovering alternatives, and you are looking at it as a historical research project. This is why i say, take it with a grain of salt. If a person wants to realize that there are alternatives, this works. If a person wants to unearth the details of those alternatives, to find out who, what, when and where they occured to further research, or to find information for a paper, article or book, then look elsewhere.

If a more indepth and dry history were in its place, fewer would get involved in the search for alternatives. Only by starting with something written in a more popular style, like Freke and Gandy's, can people become interested enough in this field, through its alternatives, to delve into more dry, but historically accurate and precise, texts. Dryer texts may scare off the less read, the newer, readers. I personally moved from Freke and Gandy's first two books to Elaine Pagel's works. Finally I just read the Nag Hamadi texts for myself, and reached my own conclusion. At the start, however, without that background, starting with Freke and Gandy, I would have been utterly overwhelmed by the texts in their pure, dry form. Such texts build on an overview that must be had, elementary ways of thinking that are based less on specific facts as on a more open mindedness to stray from Orthodox ideals. It is just this spirit that The Jesus Mysteries allowed me to foster, at a time in which anything further from Christianity would have been out of my reach, as I was so devout a believer.

-Nero

godfry n. glad

I won't rush to the defense of the authors of _The Jesus Mysteries_, largely because although I found their thesis interesting, their devotion to the precepts of historical research are lacking. Their citations are exceedingly general and not helpful at all.

Yet... I found it to be an engaging popular book that aired some rather controversial theses regarding the prevailing religious paradigm in western culture. Their basic question on whether Christianity as we know it arose from some syncretic infusion (confusion?) of Judaism and the mystery religions so prevalent during the first three centuries of the common era...remains open.

I find it exceedingly ironic that those that attack the Gandy/Freke postulations fail to apply the same restrictive and critical analysis to the documents which underpin their pet dogmas. The sad truth is that we all work to ignore what we don't want to admit.

So, I'd say _The Jesus Mysteries_ is an excellent starting point for those unfamiliar with the controversy, _because_ it raises some interesting questions. Read it; then question it. That's an excellent start. Find out more. That's an excellent means of continuing.

Now.... Do the same with the orthodox claimants....with the mythicist claimants... with the catholic claimants... with the protestant claimants.... with the charismatic claimants... with the evangelical claimants... with the gnostic claimants... with the heretical claimants... With anything that any other vociferous adherent pushes at you and claims that it has "the answers". Approach _all_ the sources with a level of informed skepticism and hear out _all_ the critics.

Then, make up your own mind.

godfry