Biff the unclean

Gee, you're a funny one. Did you just read those few lines? They are both the same story. Both protagonists head along roads in the same area (maybe even the same road) Both intent on doing harm to the worshipers of what they both mistakenly believe to be false Gods. Both mistakenly believe the worshipers to be committing evil. Both Gods appear to both protagonists and both speak the same lines of dialogue. Both protagonists have a complete change of heart.
The Bacchae tells a religious story that was already thousands of years old when Euripides wrote the play. The story of Paul being the same lets us know that the author of Acts ripped off the mythology. But the lines of dialogue (you need a better translation) being the same lets us know that he stole it from one particular source, Euripides.

Let me guess, you think that West Side Story wasn't taken from Romeo and Juliet because there were no dancing Porto Ricans in Verona.

In any case, you haven't answered my question about whether you have a guess as to why your whole argument falls to pieces if one of your claims is correct. I would appreciate it if you would take a stab at answering that question.
I didn't answer because I'm not a big fan of silly games.
Let's see…
My argument falls to pieces because Jesus is magic and walks on water and brings toys to the good little girls and boys and lumps of coal to the naughty ones? Was I close? Do I win a prize?

Biff the unclean

opps, wrong button

[ November 06, 2002: Message edited by: Biff the unclean ]</p>

Fiach

Amos, your concepts of Jesus and Christ are quite different from what I was taught. However, it is much more interesting. And your views of Joseph and Mary Magdalene are revolutionary, are they not? I apologise if I seemed a wee tart in my response. I must read more of you posts.

Cheers,

Fiach

Amos

My views are Catholic but maybe not like some of the Catholics you know. The Church is big and if all roads lead to Rome there is nothing revolutionary in the Church (except when the odd miracle is added to their doctrine).

Is that OK?

[ November 06, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

Douglas J. Bender

Biff,

Thanks.

I sure did. Several times...carefully.

Hogwash. They share SOME similarities, but to claim that they are "the same story" would be like noticing a few similarities between, say, "Jaws" and "Moby Dick" (I know Peter Benchley used some of the ideas from "Moby Dick", but some things are so general as to be almost universal, as in "battling a mysterious foe" and "challenging the sea", etcetera), and claiming they are "the same story", or noticing that both Tweety Bird and Big Bird are yellow and "sweet-natured", and claiming that Big Bird is therefore a copycat of Tweety (I'm sure I could think of some other examples which are even clearer, if I took the time).

Pentheus was walking along a road from Jerusalem to Damascus?

Okay. But this seems to be a fairly simple generality, in that it could easily be described of about ANY religion - that is, it would not be an uncommon thing, I should think, that a religion would offer stories of the conversion of one of its enemies.

Well, duh. If they believed the worshipers were committing "good", it's rather doubtful they'd be intent on causing them harm.

Ummmmm, the only "line of dialogue" I detected in The Bacchae that could reasonably be inferred as being the same as any of the lines Jesus spoke to Saul/Paul on the road to Damascus was the part where Dionysus said "kicking against the pricks". But if you note the context of this in The Bacchae, you'll see that Dionysus was NOT referring to Pentheus as "kicking against the pricks", but rather himself, and even in that, by saying that he'd rather "kick against the pricks" than have something else happen. A very different, almost opposite, use of that phrase from Jesus' use.

Yep, changes of heart never happen in stories. That alone should be proof the two accounts are the same, right? Anyway, you apparently fail to notice that Pentheus spends most of his time in the exchange threatening, and arguing with, Dionysus. Rather a far cry from Saul/Paul's reaction to Jesus' appearing to him.

And how do you know it was "thousands of years old" when Euripedes wrote the play? Do you have copies of critics' reviews from thousands of years before Euripedes' time? But you're right - it's too much of a coincidence that there could be more than one "religious story".

Here are the similarities:
- A man is walking along a road somewhere in the Middle East, intent on harming those he views as worshipers of a false god. (Yep, nothing like that is likely to ever happen in any religion.)
- The god he thinks is false appears to him as he walks along the road. (It is not that unusual in religious stories for "gods" to appear to their antagonists, although to do so as that antagonist walks along a road is perhaps unusual; though if it was in a city, big deal [there aren't many choices: city, small town, home, ship, road, wilderness].)
- The "god" convinces the antagonist to have a change of heart. (Boy, is this strange - who has ever heard of such a thing?)
- The "god" uses a particular phrase, "kicking against the pricks". (Man, is this the clincher - kind of like if two books used the phrase, "stubborn as a mule"...if they did, we'd know one was the copycat of the other, wouldn't we?)

Why? Where is that translation seriously in error, or even slightly so?

"Stubborn as a mule". "Sly as a fox". "Wise as an owl". "Counting chickens before they're hatched". "Head in the clouds". "Heaven sent". "Fly off the handle". "Gone haywire". "Feather in your cap". "Cock and bull story". Etcetera.

There weren't?

Well, I didn't know that you considered answering valid questions and points to be a "silly game". But perhaps you just consider those questions and points which you cannot answer to be "silly games".

Nope. And I see you are once again confusing two stories.

Not the least bit. I can tell you have no clue, so I'll spare you any further distress, and tell you what the answer is. (I'm honestly very surprised you could not see it.) The reason your whole argument falls apart, if your claim that The Bacchae was well-known even around Jesus' time and in His culture (the Jews, Romans, and Greeks, that is), is that for Luke to have then so blatantly (according to you) ripped off both the essential story from that part of The Bacchae, and also especially the very particular phrase ("kicking against the pricks") would have been to make it patently obvious to MOST of Luke's current and future audience that his story was just a bunch of bull. Therefore, if your claims are correct, then either Luke was just trying to write an interesting piece of fiction without too much originality, or he was an absolutely completely idiotic liar. It would have been like someone today taking a well-known story from Shakespeare, changing it ever so slightly while keeping a well-known phrase from it intact, and then trying to present it as a modern-day historical event.

Yes - you may pick up your Booby-prize as you exit this thread (note that "Booby" is not meant to have any female connotations).

In Christ,

Douglas

[ November 08, 2002: Message edited by: Douglas J. Bender ]</p>

Biff the unclean

Did you just read those few lines?
I sure did. Several times...carefully.
The implication was that you only read these few lines and not the play itself

They are both the same story.
Hogwash. They share SOME similarities…
These some similarities are the plot and the dialogue.
The characters have different names and the ending is different. Dionysus is the villain of this play.

Pentheus was walking along a road from Jerusalem to Damascus?
He is walking on a road that is in the area-going to or from Damascus.
This is called "setting the scene." It allows the audience to picture the characters surroundings.
Both stories are set in the same scene.

Both intent on doing harm to the worshipers of what they both mistakenly believe to be false Gods.
Okay. But this seems to be a fairly simple generality, in that it could easily be described of about ANY religion
Not at all. In the Hellenistic world people respected each others religions. Their gods were just as real as your god was. So this sort of thing would have been unusual.
This is what is called "motivation."
The protagonists of both stories have exactly the same motivation.

Both mistakenly believe the worshipers to be committing evil. Well, duh. If they believed the worshipers were committing "good", it's rather doubtful they'd be intent on causing them harm.
Well duh yourself. In the structure of Greek tragedy the protagonist always had what is called "the tragic flaw." In this case he believed a lie because it suited his own personal ends.
The protagonists of both stories have exactly the same "tragic flaw."

Both Gods appear to both protagonists and both speak the same lines of dialogue. Ummmmm, the only "line of dialogue" I detected in The Bacchae that could reasonably be inferred as being the same as any of the lines Jesus spoke to Saul/Paul on the road to Damascus was the part where Dionysus said "kicking against the pricks".
This is the part in Greek plays called "the deus ex machina" it is called that because they would pop the actor playing the god on stage through a trap door.
Both stories share the same 'Deus ex machina."

But if you note the context of this in The Bacchae, you'll see that Dionysus was NOT referring to Pentheus as "kicking against the pricks", but rather himself,
That's why I told you that you need a better translation.
Yours has DIONYSUS: I would rather do him sacrifice than in a fury kick against the pricks; thou a mortal, he a god.
That makes no sense at all.
The actual line is. "I would rather him do sacrifice than in a fury kick against the pricks for you are mortal and Dionessi god.

A very different, almost opposite, use of that phrase from Jesus' use. Opposite what was actually written too.
Both stories share the same dialogue.

Both protagonists have a complete change of heart.
Yep, changes of heart never happen in stories.
Change of heart after a god appears to you happened all the time in stories. It is called the "climax."
Both stories share the same climax

And how do you know it was "thousands of years old" when Euripedes wrote the play?
Because I'm literate. Have you never even read classical literature?

Do you have copies of critics' reviews from thousands of years before Euripedes' time? But you're right - it's too much of a coincidence that there could be more than one "religious story".
Euripides wrote the play based on a story from the Dionysian religion. There are no reviews of religious stories.
Are you claiming that Christianity is older than Hellenism?

Here are the similarities:…
Allow me.
1) Both stories share the same setting of the scene
2) The protagonists of both stories have exactly the same motivation
3) The protagonists of both stories have exactly the same "tragic flaw."
4) Both stories share the same "Deus ex machina."
5) Both stories share the same dialogue.
6) Both stories share the same climax

"Stubborn as a mule". "Sly as a fox". "Wise as an owl". "Counting chickens before they're hatched". "Head in the clouds". "Heaven sent". "Fly off the handle". "Gone haywire". "Feather in your cap". "Cock and bull story". Etcetera.
The kicking at pricks line became famous because it was in this play. Much like "to be or not to be," or "friends Romans countrymen lend me your ears." When you see famous lines like that being used in dramatic situations that parallel those in Hamlet and Julius Caesar it is a clear indication that the author is drawing from Shakespeare.

The reason your whole argument falls apart, if your claim that The Bacchae was well-known even around Jesus' time and in His culture (the Jews, Romans, and Greeks, that is), is that for Luke to have then so blatantly (according to you) ripped off both the essential story from that part of The Bacchae, and also especially the very particular phrase ("kicking against the pricks") would have been to make it patently obvious to MOST of Luke's current and future audience that his story was just a bunch of bull.
If you'll read the rest of the story in the NT and in the so called Gnostic bibles you'll find that the whole thing is full of bull. That didn't seem to matter to believers then or now how ridicules and stupid the story is. Nor did it matter to them that the Pagans (see the Emperor Julian the Apostate [r361-363 CE]) were pissed that their religious stories were stolen and repackaged and told the the Christians so.
Logic has nothing to do with Christian belief. It is futile to say that if they behaved as they did they would have been illogical. They were illogical. They did know that this was from Euripides. They didn't care or they came up with lame excuses-exactly as you are doing-that allowed them to deny the obvious to themselves.

Therefore, if your claims are correct, then either Luke was just trying to write an interesting piece of fiction without too much originality, or he was an absolutely completely idiotic liar.
Plagiarism was a common practice until quite modern times when copyright laws were initiated.

It would have been like someone today taking a well-known story from Shakespeare, changing it ever so slightly while keeping a well-known phrase from it intact, and then trying to present it as a modern-day historical event.
That's exactly right. That is a perfect analogy.
Now cover your eyes and put your fingers in your ears or you might actually reach a conclusion that is contrary to faith.

If I told you "what I did on my summer vacation," and you recognized it as "A Mid-summers Night's Dream" but set in San Francisco in 2002 would you believe that I was telling you the historic facts?

Biff the unclean

Sorry to hijack your thread Hinduwoman, it wasn't my intention to do so. So back to the question of the Xian trinity.

Nothing in Christianity appears to be based on historic fact. That is, none of the myths seems to have evolved from an actual event. Rather Christianity gives every indication of having been constructed by committee from existing religions. Since there are almost no artifacts from before the fourth century CE and a flood of them there after Christianity is probably a much later invention than is commonly claimed.

My guess, as I've already stated is that the trinity came from Dionysus (whose very name means "born again") because of the Father/Son/holy Ghost. That and that it was such a popular religion in Byzantium.

But you could easily make a case for it coming from Hinduism.
It would have come by way of Apollonius of Tyana a Pythagorean who studied in northern India. He returned to Rome itself and started a religion based on the god he called Christos --a Latinised version of Christna; the spelling of which was only changed in the nineteenth century CE to "Krishna." It became a very popular religion in Rome, especially amongst well to do women, because Apollonius was so charismatic. He is credited with doing exactly the same healing miracles as Jesus at exactly the same time as Jesus. The several paintings in the catacombs of Rome that are said to be metaphors of Jesus that show a clean shaved, short haired, smiling young man raising the dead by the use of a magic wand are Apollonius. He used the symbol of the zodiac sign Pisces (at the time a single fish and not a pair as seen today) for his religion because the fish represented renewed life.
The big difference between Jesus and Apollonius being that Apollonius of Tyana was recorded by history and Jesus was not. So you have a basic of the Hindu trinity being taught in Rome in the first and second centuries incorporating the Christos and the Dionysian incorporating the Father, Son and Holy Ghost in the east. (The Cave of the Dionysian mysteries--the center of the religion--is about a two minute walk from the Agora in Athens where Paul received such a poor reception. He's lucky they didn't tear him apart, retelling their own religious story right outside of their own temple). All the parts of the Xian trinity--just waiting to be stirred together.

Llyricist

Wow Biff, I hadn't run across that. That would explain quite a bit, if not the whole basis for xtianity LOL.

I found somewhere it was explained that the basis for the Pisces fish was in the astrology of the time, the sun had just begun rising in Pisces at the vernal equinox in the first centuries BCE due to the precession of the earth's tilt (not that they knew THAT, but they did know the sun rose in different contellations over long periods of time, about 2000 years) and each 2000 years was known as an "Age" (we are now in the dawning of the age of Aquarius, as the song says) and each age needed a ruler (interesting parellel to Paul's use of the phrase "Rulers of this age") so Appolonius (sp??) was just bringing the new ruler to light so to speak. It also explains the inclusion of the Magi from the East in one of the nativity stories, they were the astrologers searching for the new ruler for the age of Pisces.

Biff the unclean

Magi? There's a lot more to them than just that. Magi were astrologer priests in Zoroastrianism and it's off shoot Mithraism.
Mithraism being the leading religion of the Roman legions and the faith of the Emperor Constantine.
More than 70% of the story of Jesus is actually the story of Mithra. (Ever wonder why a nice Jewish boy would get baptized, and by someone with the same name as the god Capricorn?) Do a web search, it'll curl your hair.
Mithra-known as the "good Shepherd"- was supposed to have a second coming. This return of the son of God (Ahura Mazda) was to be announced in the stars. Mithra was then supposed to over throw the lord of darkness (Andra Mainyu)… you recognize the story. The Magi were to bring gifts to the son of their God to welcome his return. Of course this has got nothing to do with the Jews. And we are getting away from the Trinity again. (Sorry Hinduwoman--it just happens)

Llyricist

That's why I kept mine short and sweet Biff yeah I know there is alot more...tried to cover alot of things with few words