Rameus' Sermon on Selective Skepticism

November 1, 2005

Hello friends, it has been too long. I stopped in recently as a guest to comment on an article on Mithra that had been posted in the Lion’s Den forum. My commentary led to a whirlwind discussion that eventually led me to the conclusion that the ex-Christian community, which I love and respect, has lost some of the healthy skepticism that it once had.

For the purpose of making and point, and frankly for the sheer morbid entertainment value, I came in under the guise of a liberal Christian I attacked various inaccuracies that were contained in the article. During the discussion I found that several members of these forums were relying on information gathered from the Internet, much of which was complete and utter shash. And despite my efforts, I was not able to dissuade them from abandoning their information for a more moderate model.

So basically I thought I would take a moment to express my concern that perhaps too many people here are relying on Internet information that is just totally out of left field. Now as some of you may recall, I am not, nor will I ever be a Christian of any sort. Indeed I can’t imagine I will go to my grave one day as anything but an agnostic. So I am certainly not trying to encourage anyone to reconsider their decision to leave Christianity. However, most of us here left the faith (or were never truly part of it) because of our skeptical nature. We dared to examine and question the Bible, and in that process we discovered that it was absolutely riddled with contradictions, historical inaccuracies, mythology, and even outright madness. What separates us from the conservative religionists of the world is that we are skeptical. We choose to be critical of our sources.

Unfortunately, I think that far too many skeptics in the world are hypocritical in that they are selective about applying their skepticism. Joining your community again for this brief moment has really hammered that point home to me. In another post I wrote that “I dropped in briefly so see how my old friends were doing, and I found that some of the wolves had become sheep.” In the 6 hours or so that I spent here in the guise of a liberal Christian I found that many of the members of this community were highly skeptical of my remarks (and to the best of my knowledge, they were accurate), but were quite willing to uncritically accept whatever anti-religious shash they could dig up on the Internet. I pointed this out time and time again, without really making a dent in anyone’s armor. It was not until I revealed myself as Rameus (quote possibly the least Christian human being on the planet) that anyone began to take me seriously.

I know that few of us here enjoy sermons, so I’ll try to make mine short as short as possible. My advice to you is, continue to be skeptical. But be skeptical and critical of EVERYTHING you read. Selective skepticism simply will not do. We are all familiar with the misinformation tactics of Christian apologists, but how many of us stop to take notice of the fact that the Internet is absolutely full of skeptical apologists who are just as dishonest, just as misled and ignorant as their Christian counterparts.

If we pride ourselves on being free thinkers who no longer need religion, then we need make sure that our information and arguments are better than the propaganda being peddled by the conservative religionists. In short, we need to be critical of everyone and everything, including ourselves. After years of research and writing I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that the Christ Myth thesis is effectively dead. It was killed by unscholarly, uncritical skeptical apologists like Acharya S. and Kersey Graves. Their assertions were so over the top, so poorly constructed, researched, and written that the academic community (at large) is no longer receptive to the possibility that Jesus Christ was not a historical figure. Which is unfortunate because beneath all the charcoal and detritus of that now scorched thesis, there does seem to be a core of truth to it. With a little luck, and a lot of hard work, it is my goal to one day resurrect it and eventually shift both popular and scholarly opinion back in the direction of treating the Christ Myth thesis as a viable model for explaining the rise of the Christian cult.

Since my retirement from the online debating circuit, I have immersed myself in writing and research for my book, and in the advancement of my academic credentials. Over the course of the last six months I have laid out the foundations of my case against the historical Jesus model, and in doing so I have come to one all important conclusion. That it is not as simple a situation as I had once envisioned. In fact, I am now quite comfortable saying that it might be the most daunting, complex, convoluted problem in all of ancient history. I am still confident that syncretism and religious diffusion play an important role in the in the formation of the Christian cult, although perhaps not as significantly as I once imagined. The reality is that it is no longer as simple as saying that they copied it all from the Mithraic Mysteries, or the cults of Ptolemaic Egypt. It seems to me that the formation of the Christian cult is infinitely more complex and problematic than perhaps most skeptics believe. It’s going to be a very difficult argument to make forcefully.

So my warning to all of my old friends here at the ex-Christian forums is to perhaps be a bit more careful about using the Christ Myth thesis in your debates with Christians. Many of the popularly known portions of the thesis do not hold up under scrutiny, and most of the elements that are factually accurate have yet to be published or disseminated to the public. I hope that the publication of my book will rectify this problem once and for all. On one hand, I want to get this information out into the public domain as quickly as possible, but on the other hand I also want my work to hold up to the scrutiny of future generations of academics. Exposing the origins of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is a monumental task, and if it takes me five, or ten, or fifteen more years to get the job done properly then so be it. In the meantime, I think we as skeptics need to be a bit more cautious and critical about the information we read and use on the web.

In any event, it has been a pleasure to join the community again, if only for a few hours. I think I will make a point to return once or twice a year to probe the community’s defenses, and make sure that everyone’s swords are sharp. As skeptics and freethinkers, we are after all interested in the truth. The last thing we want to do is trade one set of (religious) propaganda for a completely different set of (secular) propaganda.

Keep up the fight my friends, and perhaps one day we can live in a world where people don’t imagine that they have conversations with crucified dead people and condemn one another for believing in the wrong set of fairy tales. For now, I bid you all a very fond farewell.

Rameus

P.S. Below I have posted excerpts (the entire discussion is VERY long) from the thread which inspired this post to serve as an example of the sort of misinformation which has become all too common on the Internet these days. Remember, as skeptics we need to be skeptical of everything, including information that happens to be in harmony with our worldviews.

November 1, 2005

Abram Oct 30 2005, 03:53 PM
Post #123

Unregistered

Hello again. Sorry I was busy editing the essay with my comments and corrections. I have pasted it below. My comments are in CAPITAL LETTERS.

Jesus Never Was

By

Don Havis

(COMMENTED BY ABRAM)

The purpose of this article is to outline what I consider to be the major arguments in support of a “pure-myth” viewpoint or position concerning the question of the historicity of the biblical figure we know as Jesus, a.k.a. Jesus Christ, Jesus the Christ, or Jesus of Nazareth. A second purpose is to provide the reader with a selected bibliography of books, generally written by highly qualified biblical scholars (IN NEARLY EVERY CASE THIS IS AN INACCURATE STATEMENT: LET’S LOOK AT THREE OF THE AUTHORS THAT ARE QUOTED MOST FREQUENTLY. ACHARYA S. HAS AN UNDERGRADUATE DEGREE IN CLASSICS; EARL DOHERTY HAS AN UNDERGRADUATE DEGREE IN ANCIENT HISTORY; AND DR. WELLS IS A PROFESSOR OF GERMAN STUDIES. NOT ONE OF THEM CAN BE ACCURATELY REFERRED TO AS A “HIGHLY QUALIFIED” BIBLICAL SCHOLARS HERE.), which the author has either used as sources of information, and/or has directly quoted from in the preparation of this paper. The author, himself, makes no pretense of being a “biblical scholar,” only an avid reader of their works.

Before I attempt to present at least “summaries” of arguments in support of the pure-myth point of view, (hereafter referred to as a “position”) I think it would be helpful to make clear the various positions which have traditionally been listed as possible. Some scholars have listed three positions. I prefer John Remsberg’s four different options. The positions listed below are from Remsberg’s 1909 book, The Christ, page 327, with slight additions of mine for clarification.

Four Positions On Jesus

“Orthodox Christians believe that Christ was a historical character. [However, he was] both supernatural and divine; and that the New Testament narratives, which purport to give a record of his life and teachings, contain nothing but infallible truth.” (This is generally know as the “literalist position.”)

"Conservative Rationalists, like Renan and the Unitarians, believe that Jesus of Nazareth is a historical character and that these narratives, eliminating the super-natural elements, which they regard as myths, give a fairly authentic account of his life.” (This is usually referred to as the “historical myth” position.)

"Many radical Freethinkers believe that Christ is a myth, of which Jesus of Nazareth is the basis, but that these narratives are so legendary and contradictory as to be almost if not wholly, unworthy of credit.” In other words, there was most likely a historical Jesus, but virtually all of the stories about him are mythical. (This is known as the “philosophical myth” position.) My added comment would be that in the intervening years between 1909 and now, this position would no longer be considered at all “radical,” and the Unitarians referred to in position 2, above, have shifted almost entirely to this third perspective.

“Other [‘more radical’ is implied here] Freethinkers believe that Jesus Christ is a pure myth—that he never had an [historic] existence, except as a Messianic idea, or an imaginary solar deity.” I would add here that a natural concomitant of this position is that the four canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are entirely fictional—made up stories, no parts of which have any basis in reality whatsoever. (This is the “pure-myth” position.)

The Seven Major Arguments

I admit that there may very well be more than “seven major arguments” for the pure-myth position, and that in some instances the arguments presented here partially overlap. Also, many of the same arguments can be used to support position three. However, I have, perhaps arbitrarily, outlined the following seven arguments for the reader’s consideration: (1) No one seemed to have noticed Jesus in his time. (2) The Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses. (3) The gospels are entirely fictional, pure myths. (4) What we now call “Christianity” existed long before Jesus’ time. It was derived from earlier “scripture” and more ancient myths. (5) Paul, writing earlier than the gospels, clearly spoke of a “spiritual” Christ. He knew nothing of a real, live human Jesus. (6) There is no agreement at all concerning this putative historical Jesus’ looks, lineage, biography, character, moral worthiness, or even his central message. (7)

The “you-can’t-have-it-both-ways” argument.

Again, the combination of all the arguments and opinions outlined in support of the above points will not absolutely “prove” that there was no historical Jesus. Logicians tell us it is impossible to absolutely prove a negative. It might be possible that there was a “real” William Tell who served as the inspiration for, and may have even engaged in some of the activities ascribed to the legendary Swiss folk hero. However, the great preponderance of the evidence we have at this time argues very strongly against this possibility. I believe that position four, described above, is an exact parallel to the pure myth claim for William Tell. The same claim might also be made about any of the long list of crucified saviors that have “visited” earth long before the beginning of the first century of this era. (THE CLOSEST PARALLEL THAT EXISTS IS THE GREEK GOD PROMETHEUS WHO WAS CHAINED TO A ROCK, AND AN EAGLE NAMED ETHON WOULD EAT HIS LIVER OUT DAILY. IT GREW BACK DAILY ALSO.) My claim is, in other words, that applying “Ockham’s razor,” (e.g. the simplest, most logical explanation that comports with all the known facts), and considering the tremendous dearth of evidence to the contrary, the most rational conclusion is that there never was an historical Jesus. Further, I contend that he, and consequently all that is said about him, are entirely fictional.

Now that I’ve made that exceedingly clear, let’s get on with the arguments, one by ne.

No one noticed Jesus in “his day."

As most of the readers of this article know, Christian apologists, world-wide, have “pointed with pride” to a handful of early extra-biblical writings which directly mention Jesus, John the Baptist, and/or James the Just, a.k.a. James the Brother of the Lord as a real first-century historical persons. “Ah ha,” they say. “Since you skeptics erroneously believe that the four Gospels are works of fiction, how can you account for these writings of reliable, unbiased historians who wrote about or referred to Jesus at or very near the time when he was alive?”

Just to mention the one “main gun” that Christian apologist have been firing at us skeptics for the past 1,800 years, (The difficulty of defending the Gospels has been a well-recognized problem for the church since they first where apparently “noticed’ by anyone around the middle of the second century.), I will briefly discuss the famous “Testimonium Flavium.” This Latin phrase refers to a single paragraph of about twelve sentences which appears to most critics to have been inserted awkwardly between two paragraphs which make perfectly good sense without the insertion. The reference is in a book by the well-known first century Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus [37 c95 CE]. The reference is contained in his book, The Antiquities of the Jews. This book is—appropriately enough for the reference to be contained in—a book about the early history of the Jews in the area where Jesus is supposed to have preached, and in the time when he was supposedly alive.

As Frank R. Zindler says, “Although Flavius Josephus was born too late to be an eyewitness of the lives of Jesus or John the Baptist nevertheless he was a contemporary of the evangelists [assuming they existed] who wrote of these characters. He should have heard of Paul [if he existed, whom he never mentions]. Furthermore, from his priest-craft father, Matthias [b 6 CE] he should have known about the religious ferment supposedly stirred up by the doings of Jesus.” (Zindler, Frank R., The Jesus The Jews Never Knew, p. 35). Yet this well-respected historian mentions none of this with the single exception of the paragraph referred to above. In that paragraph only, he names a man called Jesus. “He was the Christ,” Josephus is made to say. He was a “doer of wonderful works” and that “Pilate condemned him to the cross.” The paragraph concludes that, “The tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.” “This day” would be about the year 90 CE, approximately when Josephus wrote his history book. This phrase, at the very least, is an obvious later interpolation as there was no “tribe of Christians” during Josephus’s time. Christianity did not get off the ground until the second century. (NOT TRUE; THE LETTERS OF PLINY CLEARLY INDICATE THAT CHRISTIANITY WAS WELL ESTABLISHED IN ASIA MINOR BY CA. 112 A.D. AND TACITUS DESCRIBES A SITUATION IN ROME WHERE THE NEW CHRISTIAN SECT WAS SO HATED THAT NERO BLAMED THEM FOR A FIRE THAT DECIMATED THE CITY DURING CA. 60-65 A.D.)

It is also interesting that the mention of this particular Jesus, “Jesus the Christ,” is divulged by Josephus with no more emphasis than he gives to the other 20 Jesuses he speaks of in his writings. (NOT TRUE. I WILL GIVE TWO COUNTEREXAMPLES, ALTHOUGH SEVERAL MORE EXIST. JESUS SON OF DAMNEUS, A HIGH PRIEST OF JERUSALEM IS ONLY MENTIONED IN TWO SENTENCES BY JOSEPHUS. SEE: (JOSEPHUS, ANTIQUITIES BOOK 20 CH. 9 V. 203 AND 206. AND JESUS SON OF GAMALIEL, ANOTHER HIGH PRIEST OF JERUSALEM IS ONLY MENTIONED IN ONE SENTENCE. SEE: (JOSEPHUS, ANTIQUITIES, BOOK 20 CH. 9 V. 213.) (See Leidner, Harold, The Fabrication of the Christ Myth, p. 19 20).

In summary, let me just say that the single paragraph referred to above has been one of the most thoroughly researched and debated topics in all of biblical criticism. Those that want a more detailed analysis can refer to Zindler’s entire chapter on it in the above cited book, (“Faking Flavius”, p. 31 to 73.) Additionally, Earl Doherty’s book supporting the mythical Christ theory, The Jesus Puzzle discusses this and other early likely Christian interpolations in chapter 21, “Flavius Josephus” p. 205 to 222. Referring to another oft-quoted reference to Jesus in the writings of the Roman historian Tacitas [c55CE-c120 CE], Doherty says, “If the silence on Jesus in the earlier works of both Tacitus and Josephus casts doubt on the authenticity of their later references, then we truly have lost every clear non-Christian reference to Jesus as a human being [emphasis added] before the latter half of the second century.” (p. 222) (ADMITEDLY THE JOSEPHUS PASSAGE IS A 4TH CENTURY FORGERY, BUT THERE IS NOT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CLAIM THAT THE TACITUS PASSAGE IS ALSO A FORGERY.)

Think about that sentence for a minute. Dozens of books of Christian apologists will offer long lists of citations about Jesus from early writings. However, most of these citations refer to either clearly awkwardly done interpolations, whereas others were written by authors who lived anywhere from a century and a half up to several centuries past the time when Jesus was supposed to have lived. These quotations referring to Jesus and other Gospel characters simply repeat stories that the writer has heard from other Jesus cult enthusiasts. As such, they are of no value whatsoever.

In addition to the above noted refutation of the most important references to a supposed historical Jesus written near Jesus’ time, I should also mention at least two “deafening silences” by highly regarded writers of the same time period. I am referring to the writings of Philo, an eminent Jewish philosopher and historian who lived during the early first century, and Justus of Tiberias, a native of Galilee who wrote a history covering the period in which Jesus is said to have lived. Neither one of them ever mentioned a “Jesus.” The works of Justus have all perished now. However, we have the writings of a ninth century Christian Bishop and scholar of Constantinople, Photius, who says that he had read Justus’ works. He reports, in utter amazement one might imagine, that, “He (Justus) makes not the least mention of the appearance of Christ, of what things happened to him, or of the wonderful works he did.” (Jackson, J. G., Pagan Origins of the Jesus Myth, p. 8.) Personally, I find that quote absolutely jaw-dropping. (IT PERHAPS NOTEWORTHY THAT JUSTUS OF TIBERIAS DID NOT MENTION JESUS, PARTICULARLY SINCE OUR LORD PERFORMED MIRACLES THERE. ALTHOUGH WE NO LONGER HAVE HIS WORKS TO CONSULT, SO WE ARE MERELY TAKING PHOTIUS’ WORD FOR IT. AND JUSTUS WAS JEWISH, SO PERHAPS HE HAD IDEOLOGICAL REASONS FOR NOT MENTIONING JESUS. BUT THERE IS NO REASON THAT PHILO, WHO WAS ALL THE WAY OVER IN ALEXANDRIA SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED HIM. HE WAS NOT WRITING HISTORY, HE WAS WRITING JEWISH WISDOM/PHILOSOPHY/OLD TESTAMENT COMMENTARY.)

The Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses.

Whether one believes that the canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke & John) are partly fictional elaborations of some core of truth, or whether you believe they are entirely fictional is not the issue at this point. (What I see as a separate issue of their fictional or non-fictional status will be taken up in the next point.) The question here is simply, were the gospels written by human witnesses to the “life and times” of the putative Jesus? This point can be handled quite briefly. The answer is a resounding “No!” (EVIDENCE FOR THIS ASSERTION PLEASE?) There is virtual unanimity of opinion by all un-brainwashed, rational biblical scholars—even so-called Christian scholars (perhaps an oxymoron)—that the gospels were written by now unknown writers anytime between 40 years after Jesus’ time up to about 185 years after his supposed death, depending on what scholar one consults. Most scholars place Mark, the generally recognized first written gospel, at about the year 70 CE, just after the destruction of the Jewish temple of Yahweh. (60-70 C.E. WOULD MAKE MARK PERHAPS 50-60 YEARS OLD. IS THIS IMPOSSIBLE? NO.) However, Earl Doherty has advanced some closely reasoned arguments that support a time “around the years 85 to 90 CE.” (The Jesus Puzzle, p. 3).

Famed Jesus scholar, Dr. G. A Wells (FAMED GERMAN LANGUAGE STUDIES SCHOLAR YOU MEAN.) summarizes in his 1988 book, The Historical Evidence for Jesus, “The gospels are usually put between 70 and 110, with Mark at about 70, Matthew and Luke a little later, and John, the latest, at about 100. Acts (written as we shall see, by the author of Luke) and some of the pseudo-Pauline epistles are assigned to the turn of the century. I find all this convincing enough, except in the case of Mark, which I date at about 90 rather than 70. If this is correct, then all four gospels were written soon after 90 and drew some of their material from earlier documents which have not survived and from oral tradition, much of which must have been available from about 80, although it would have taken time for them to have become generally disseminated.” (Wells, op. cit. p. 10 & 11).

There is near unanimous agreement that the very first mention of the existence of what we now call the gospels was by Justin Martyr, in the 150s. (IGNATIUS REFERENCES VARIOUS PASSAGES FROM THE GOSPELS, ALTHOUGH HE DOES NOT IDENTIFY THE AUTHORS. HE WOULD HAVE BEEN WRITING CA. 100-110 A.D. POLYCARP ALSO MAKES REFERENCES SLIGHTLY BEFORE JUSTIN.) Doherty says, however, that he may only have known of Matthew and Luke. “Even at that, he does not refer to them by name, calling the documents he is quoting from ‘memoirs of the Apostles.’ Moreover, his quotations for the most part do not agree with our present texts.” (The Jesus Puzzle, p. 259) So, it seems that the “eyewitness testimony” of the so-called “apostles” was still being sort of “worked out” a century and a half after J.C.’s supposed birth. (FRAGMENT P-52 OF THE GOSPEL OF JOHN IS CONSERVATIVELY DATED AS EARLY AS 120 A.D., AND MORE LIBERALLY DATED TO CA. 150 A.D. SINCE JOHN WAS ALMOST CERTAINLY THE LAST OF THE GOSPELS TO BE WRITTEN (MARKAN PRIORITY THESIS), THEN IT STANDS TO REASON THAT MARK, MATTHEW, AND LUKE WERE COMPOSED WELL BEFORE 120 A.D.)

The gospels are entirely fictional, pure myths.

Many large tomes have been entirely devoted to supporting the point that great sections, if not all, of the New Testament, as well as the Old Testament, are simply a retelling of fabulous tales based on older Jewish, Roman, Greek, Persian, and even more ancient Egyptian stories. Substantiating this point does not advance this paper’s major thesis, except as it applies to the only supposed biblical “evidence” in support of a historic Jesus—that is, that testimony provided by the four gospels. For those readers who might be interested in the spurious origins of not only the gospels, but also the entire bible, the names of several entire books devoted to this subject can be found in the bibliography of this paper.

It is interesting to me that a great many freethinkers and rationalists—people who might be reading this article—are very quick to agree that pretty much the entire bible is chock full of misinformation, forgeries, bad history and just plain lies. (RIGHT, SO BECAUSE SKEPTICS THINK IT, THAT MUST MAKE IT SO.)

Not only that, but most rationalists are quite willing to accept the proposition that this mish-mash of prevarication was not simply a naive passing along of old legends, but were written for the express purpose of convincing (i.e. “converting”) the gullible reader into subscribing to the particular fanciful dogma the ancient writers were trying to peddle. However, for some reason or another that entirely escapes me—perhaps just early brainwashing imbedded as deeply as potty training—these same rationalists are reluctant to imagine that the four gospels are completely fictional. Surely, they say, there must have been some sort of demythologized, even perhaps anonymous nobody who was arrested, tried by Roman authorities, then crucified. We can’t be sure of any more details than that, they say. I simply ask, why must this be so? (IT IS THE MOST RATIONAL MODEL THAT ACCOUNTS FOR THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY.) What more tangible evidence can anyone present that the whole story is not simply what it appears to be—a retelling of one or more of the dozens, perhaps hundreds, of ancient sun-god or sky-god’s traditional, descending then ascending god myths, generally consisting of elements such as of first some tribulations (a trial), conviction, crucifixion, and finally resurrection? One could go on for several paragraphs pointing out the many details of the “passion story” that have parallels not only in more ancient myths, but also in earlier Jewish writings including the Old Testament. (THE PASSION STORY IS PARALLED IN THE O.T., BUT WE CHRISTIANS BELIEVE THAT IS PROPHECY, NOT DIFFUSION. AS FAR AS THE PASSION STORY BEING COPIED IN PAGAN MYTHOLOGY, THERE IS ONE VAGUE PARALLEL WITH A UGARIC POEM ABOUT A BA’AL THAT IS ARRESTED, TRIED, ETC. THE PARALLELS ARE VERY, VERY GENERAL.) See, for example, Zechariah 9: 9, which foreshadows Jesus’ triumphal entrance into Jerusalem on an ass; actually “on an ass and the foal of an ass”—a neat trick, eh?), and the foreshadowing of the whole “passion story” in Psalms 22, the virgin birth in Isaiah 7: 14, his birth in Bethlehem in Micah 5: 2. All of this has been well noted for centuries. Why in the world would any rational person imagine that any of these fables were in any sense true? (ONE MUST WONDER WHY HE PROVIDED PRIMARY SOURCE REFERENCES FOR THE O.T. PARALLELS, BUT HE DID NOT DO SO FOR THE ALLEGED PAGAN PARALLELS. HMMM…I WONDER WHY THAT IS? PERHAPS BECAUSE THEY DON’T EXIST?)

It is interesting to speculate on the source material for the first written gospel, the Gospel according to Mark. Perhaps Mark—probably a well educated Greek-speaking member of the Jewish Diaspora—had read the works of “Philo Judaeus, the Jewish philosopher-theologian of Alexandria in Egypt.” (A speculation of Alvar Ellegard, Jesus One Hundred Years Before Christ, p. 5) (IF ANY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS WRITERS WAS INFLUENCED BY THE ALEXANDRIAN SCHOOL OF THOUGHT, IT WAS JOHN, NOT MARK.) Or, perhaps he had heard the stories of the so-called “Teacher of Righteousness” of the Essenes who may have lived (mythological or real—who knows?) sometime in the first century BCE. (Ellegard, op. cit., p. 258). (RIGHT, AND OTHER THAN HIM BEING A TEACHER OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, WHAT ARE THE PARALLELS EXACTLY? IT’S NOT EVEN CLEAR IN THE QUMRAN TEXTS THAT THE TEACHER OF RIGHTEOUSNESS WAS PUT TO DEATH.) Maybe Mark wrote in the second century as scholar Ellegard holds, and had read Flavius Philostratus’s Life of Apollonius, whose life almost exactly paralleled the life of the mythical Jesus and who reportedly died in 98 CE. (UNFORTUNATELY FOR THIS AUTHOR, “THE LIFE OF APOLLONIUS” WAS WRITTEN BY THE PHILOSOPHER PHILOSTRATUS II CA. 215 A.D. THE WORK WAS DESIGNED TO PARALLEL THE CHRISTIAN BELIEF SYSTEM, THUS IT DID. SO PARALLELS ARE IRRELEVANT.) (See Randel Helms, Gospel Fictions, p. 9) Surely, he had read of the so-called “Suffering Servant of the Lord” described in Isaiah 52: 13 53: 12. (See Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle, p. 80). Certainly Mark, and later the other gospel writers, had no shortage of inspiration. What they didn’t have is anyone who was in any sense “real.”

It is important to remain focused on the primary reason why these gospels were written, or perhaps “compiled” would be a better word. They were written for the express purpose of convincing the uneducated and gullible masses that they no longer needed to believe in a sort of mystical, unseen, spiritual Christ (ALLEGEDLY, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO “PROVE” THIS. IN FACT THE MARCION AND GNOSTIC HERESIES ARE BELIEVED TO HAVE ORIGINATED IN THE MID SECOND CENTURY A.D. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE EXTANT TO SUGGEST THAT SUCH HERESIES EXTEND BACK TO THE FIRST CENTURY. SO THE GOSPELS WERE WRITTEN BEFORE THE HERESIES, SO TO SPEAK.) —a somewhat difficult concept for the unsophisticated to grasp even though it was familiar to them as I will discuss later. Here, in the gospels, the new Jesus cult offers a “real”, flesh and blood incarnation of god to believe in. (In truth, there was a terrific argument early on between the Gnostic Christians and the main line, later to become the Catholic Christians as to this “flesh and blood” issue.) This savior figure spoke real words (i.e. the Sermon on the Mount, etc.), ate food, performed miracles, visited real places, and spoke to “multitudes.” He was truly crucified, not allegorically crucified in a heavenly realm. (THE MARCIONITES DID NOT QUESTION THE PHYSICAL CRUCIFIXION, THEY QUESTIONED THE PHYSICAL RESURRECTION OF JESUS’ BODY.) Remember “doubting Thomas”? He wanted to stick his fingers into Jesus’ wounds, just to be sure. (John 20: 26-27) I thought that was a "nice touch” for the last gospel fiction writer to add; don’t you? For those of you that might still be unconvinced of the absolute untrustworthiness of the gospels in particular, I offer just one more powerful quotation for your consideration:

“Nearly every thing written concerning the gospels to the year 325, and all the copies of the gospels themselves to the same period, are lost or destroyed. (APPARENTLY NEW TESTAMENT 55,000 FRAGMENTS DON’T COUNT?) The truth is that very few early Christian texts exist because the autographs, or originals, were destroyed after the Council of Nicea (THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THIS THAT I AM AWARE OF.) and the “retouching” of 506 CE under Emperor Anastasius, which included “revision” of the Church fathers’ works—catastrophic acts that would be inconceivable if these ‘documents’ were truly the precious testaments of the very Apostles themselves regarding the ‘Lord and Savior,’ whose alleged advent was so significant that it sparked profound fanaticism and endless wars. Repeating what would seem to be utter blasphemy, in the 11th and 12th centuries the ‘infallible Word of God’ was ‘corrected’ again by a variety of church officials. In addition to these major ‘revisions’ have been many others, including copying and translation mistakes and deliberate mutilation and obfuscation of meaning.” (Acharya S, The Christ Conspiracy, p. 26). (ACHARYA S. IS NOT EVEN REMOTELY SCHOLARLY. HER BOOK THE CHRIST CONSPIRACY IS A JOKE. SKEPTICS SHOULD BE EMBARASSED TO HAVE HER ON THEIR SIDE.) Still think the gospels are about real events? If so, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to talk to you about.

What we now call “Christianity” existed long before Jesus’ time.

As with point two above, there is little or no debate among serious scholars that what we now call “Christianity” has so heavily plagiarized from prior existing Christ and risen sun-god myths as to be virtually indistinguishable from many of them. (EVIDENCE?) Of course, first of all there is simply Judaism, which had long talked about and predicted a soon-to-arrive “Christ.” Ironically, according to them, he still hasn’t come. The documentation of this claim is the subject of literally hundreds of books. A small number of these books are quoted in this paper. Just to present a quick summation, I would like to quote a well-recognized scholar of the early 20th century. “The Pagans had their holy days (from which the Christians plagiarized their Christmas, Easter, Rogation Days, etc.); their monks, nuns, religious processions carrying images of idols, incense, holy water, holy oil, chants, hymns, liturgies, confessions of sins to priests, revelations by gods to priests, prophecies, sacred writings of ‘holy bibles,’ Pontiffs, Holy Fathers, holy crafty priesthoods. All these sacrosanct things of Christian ‘Revealed Religion,’ were age-old pre-Christian Pagan myths and superstitions.” (Forgery in Christianity, by Joseph Wheless, p. 17 and 18) All of this is not even “controversial” among knowledgeable secular biblical scholars.

I will quote one more source, a small pamphlet published by The Freedom From Religion Foundation which “zeroes in” on the mythical antecedents of the Jesus Christ figure. The pamphlet—really, a tract—is entitled, “Cookie Cutter Christs.” The sun-god Mithra, who was very popular in the Roman Empire around 2000 years ago was “born of a virgin about 600 BC, was celebrated on December 25. Magi brought gifts to his birth. His first worshipers were shepherds and he was followed in his travels by twelve companions. Mithra was slain upon a cross in Persia to make atonement for humankind and take away the sins of the world. His ascension to heaven was celebrated at the spring equinox (Easter).” Additionally, the pamphlet continues, “Mithra celebrated a ‘Last Supper’ with his 12 disciples. The Mythraists observed weekly sabbath days and celebrated the Eucharist by eating wafers marked with a cross.” Does any of this sound familiar? (YES. UNFORTUNATELY, NOT A WORD OF IT IS ACCURATE. SCHOLARS DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE MITHRA CULT OF ROME DERIVED ANYTHING BUT ITS NAME FROM THE MITHRA CULT OF PERSIA. MITHRA WAS NOT CRUCIFIED, THERE WAS NO LAST SUPPER, AND NO 12 DISCIPLES. THERE ARE NO CROSS EUCHARIST WAFERS EITHER. THE MITHRA MYSTERY CULT CELEBRATED THEIR RITES IN CAVE CHAPELS. THE ONLY EVIDENCE WE HAVE OF THEIR BELIEFS ARE WHAT LITTLE ICONOGRAPHIC REMAINS ARE EXTANT. IN ADDITION, IT IS NOT AT ALL CLEAR THAT THE ROMAN CULT OF MITHRA PRECEEDED CHRISTIANITY. ACCORDING TO THE EVIDENCE EXTANT, IT WOULD SEEM THE OPPOSITE. THE PERSIAN MITHRA CULT CERTAINLY PRECEEDED CHRISTIANITY, BUT THAT IS NOT RELEVANT AS THERE ARE NO PARALLELS OF SIGNIFICANCE.)

The same pamphlet notes that, “Attis was born of a virgin mother named Nana, in Phrygia sometime before 200 BC. He was hanged on a tree, died, rose again, and was called ‘Father God’.” (THE SOURCE FOR THIS APPEARS TO BE KERSEY GRAVES’ BOOK, WHICH HAS BEEN TOTALLY DISCREDITED. IN ANY EVENT, THERE IS NO PRIMARY DATA EXTANT THAT SUGGESTS THIS ABOUT THE ATTIS MYTHOLOGY.) “Horus was born of the virgin Isis in Egypt around 1550 BC. (INCORRECT AGAIN. ISIS PIECED TOGETHER THE BODY PARTS OF HER DEAD HUSBAND/BROTHER OSIRIS, AND HAD SEX WITH HIS PHALLIS TO PRODUCE HORUS. SHE WAS CERTAINLY NOT A VIRGIN.) Horus as an infant received gifts from three kings, and was crucified on a cross. (THERE IS NO TEXTUAL OR ICONOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE EXTANT TO SUGGEST THAT ANY OF THIS IS TRUE. READERS SHOULD RESEARCH THIS FOR THEMSELVES. IF YOU CAN FIND AN EGYPTOLOGIST WHO BELIEVES THIS THEN I’LL EAT MY SHOE.) There are about 200 close parallels of the careers of Horus and Jesus Christ.” (SPECIFICS? GIVEN THE TRACK RECORD HERE, THIS STATEMENT IS PROBABLY ALSO FALSE.) “Adonis (Tammuz) was born of a virgin mother called Ishtar (Easter), depicted like the Virgin Mary with her divine child in her arms. (THIS IS NOT AT ALL CLEAR. WE DO KNOW THAT WOMEN ‘WEPT FOR TAMMUZ’ BUT AS FAR AS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF HIS DEATH, I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY PRIMARY DATA OR REPUTABLE NEAR EASTERN SCHOLARS WHO BELIEVE THIS.) Adonis was regarded as both the son and husband of his mother Ishtar, as God the Father and God the Son.” We could go on and on. (AND WE’D PROBABLY FIND THAT YOUR DATA CONTINUES TO BE INACCURATE.) Any of the above named books will give the interested reader much more information about ancient gods along this same line. The mythology doesn’t change much, just the name of the current sun-god de jure.

Indeed, the parallels in the cult of Mithraism—perhaps Christianity’s major contemporary and most competitive religion of the first century CE—most especially, are so striking that I have often reflected that had Emperor Constantine not mandated that Christianity be the Empire’s only religion in 325 CE, and had that decree not been brutally enforced by the “firebrand and the sword” for the next 1,700 years by the Catholic Church, then we might see steepled little Mithric Churches dotting the landscape throughout Europe and the United States especially. As part of this same fantasy, I have often wondered if there would now be heated debates as to whether or not the now recognized as mythic Mithra was somehow based on a historic, real flesh-and-blood, human being named Mithra. If the Catholic Mithraist myth enforcers had been equally as successful as have been the Catholic Jesus myth enforcers, I suppose the answer of the masses—and even of some atheists—throughout most of the world would clearly be, “Yes, most likely there was a historic Mithra.” Incredible! What a brainwashing we have all been subjected to!

Most well informed Christian apologists—even back to the early “Church Fathers”—admit that the above parallels are true. Their standard response is that just because there are all of these parallels doesn’t necessarily prove that Jesus wasn’t a real human figure who may have been just doing his best to “fulfill” all the ancient prophesies, and to “fit in” to the familiar legends about him. This counter-point can’t be denied. I only ask the reader which of the two possible explanations seems the most likely?

Paul clearly spoke only of a “spiritual Christ,” not a human one.

(GALATIANS 4.4-7, CORINTHIANS 15.4, ROMANS 6.4, ROMANS 1.4, I CORINTHIANS XV 1-5 ALL SEEM TO IMPLY A PHYSICAL JESUS TO ME. PARTICULARLY GALATIANS 4.4-7 WHICH SAYS HE WAS BORN OF A WOMAN.)

It is well recognized by all but the most fanatical fundamentalist bible scholars that Paul, writing between approximately 54 C. E. an 65 C.E., was not a “witness to Jesus.” By his own admission, he saw Jesus “in a vision” while on the road to Damascus. This Jesus was a purely mythical, “spiritual Christ,” not in any sense a human being Christ. Paul “received” this Jesus through a kind of divine revelation. I believe that Doherty explains this sort of “Jesus” best when he says that the message Paul received, “Šwas about a heavenly Son of God who was both an intermediary between God and the world, and a Savior figure. He was variously called Jesus, or Yeshua (meaning ‘Yahweh Saves’ in Hebrew), the Christ (Greek for the Hebrew “Mashiach,” or Messiah, meaning ‘Anointed One’), and the Son. Some looked upon this new Son of God as a Reveler who bestowed saving knowledge of God, others as one who had undergone a sacrificial death and a resurrection. [in another heavenly realm] All manner of apostles like Paul were going about preaching this divine being and often not agreeing among themselves about him; indeed, they could be at each others’ throats, as certain passages in Paul’s letters revealed. This Son and Savior was not identified with a recent human man or placed in an earthly setting, much less given a ministry of teaching and miracle-working in Galilee. (THIS CRITICISM IS TRUE.)

[Paul knew no details of the yet to be written, gospel ‘historical’ Jesus.] Instead, he was a heavenly deity who had done his redeeming work in the supernatural dimension.” (The Jesus Puzzle p. 5.) (DEATH ON THE CROSS, REDEMPTION OF OUR SINS, RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD, ETC. ALL OF THIS SEEMS EARTHLY TO ME, BUT I SUPPOSE IT IS SUBJECTIVE AND THEREFORE DEBATABLE.)

This kind of thinking is very difficult for the modern mind. Remember that since every reader of this paper was born he or she has been constantly bombarded—well, except when you were in your church, synagogue, or mosque—with cause and effect, logical, scientific thinking. For the residents of Galilee two thousand years ago, however, nothing could have been more natural. The whole culture and the entire “civilized world” was saturated with this way of thinking. It was, as Doherty explains, “The view shared by a whole range of pagan salvation cults, each of which had its own savior god who had performed deeds in the mythical world. Like Paul’s Christ, savior gods such as Attis and Osiris had been killed; like Paul’s Christ, Osiris had been buried (after being dismembered); like Christ on the third day, Adonis and Dionysos had been resurrected from death. (INCORRECT.) All these things were not regarded as historical; they had taken place in the world of myth and higher reality.” (Doherty, op cit. p. 16.)

In summary, all of the parts of the New Testament attributed to a probably historical Paul are of no help at all in establishing a “historical” Jesus, since they never speak of such a person.

There is no agreement on any information about this supposedly historical Jesus.

By way of amplifying the above point, what I mean is that, normally, a very well-known historical person—even one existing as long as two thousand years ago—would certainly be much better known to historians than is Jesus. For example, we know much more about Alexander the Great, who lived 200 years before the Jesus character is said to have lived. (THERE IS COMPARATIVELY LITTLE ON ALEXANDER THE GREAT ACTUALLY. IN FACT, MORE ACCOUNTS WRITTEN ABOUT JESUS THAN ANY OTHER FIGURE FROM ANTIQUITY THAT I AM AWARE OF.)

Let’s examine just a few points of reference that one might reasonably be expected to know about a person whose influence was so great that it literally change the course of history over the next two millenium. (1) Looks? No one in the entire bible gives any definitive description of Jesus whatsoever. (REVELATIONS DESCRIBES HIS APPEARANCE.) He is depicted in artistic works, ranging from the ninth century up to modern times, as everything from being rather short with a “male pattern baldness problem” to the tall, handsome Nordic Jesus with the neatly trimmed beard we all met in Sunday School. Secular scholar, Dr. William Harwood, an advocate of a “historical nobody” who served as a basis of the mythical Jesus, believes that Jesus was, “an odd looking man, balding, stooped, with joined eyebrows, and approximately 4 ft 6 in tall” (Mythology’s Last Gods, p. 63). Enough said. (2) Birth date? Biblical scholars of all stripes disagree as to the date of the mythical Jesus’ birth. Dates range from about 4 BCE (the one most often quoted) to about 7 CA. (3) Birthplace? The bible says Bethlehem. However, Jesus is constantly referred to as “Jesus of Nazareth.” Scholars now understand that this was probably a linguistic confusion and perhaps an early mistranslation. Jesus was a “Nazarene,” the title of a sect, not a name having geographical associations. Thus, as G. A. Wells explains, “‘Jesus the Nazarene’ is equivalent to, say, ‘Henry the Quaker’ or ‘George the Methodist.’” (Wells, Did Jesus Exist, p. 147.) Furthermore, modern archeology has established that there was no such city as Nazareth in the first century. Dr. Harwood, mentioned above, argue strongly for the city of Capurnaum as a probable birth city. (4) Personal character and/or moral worthiness? Although we heard all about the loving, compassionate Jesus in church, and how we ought to “turn the other cheek,” we were not given the quotations that urged his followers to bring those that would not have me for their leader and “slay them before me.” (Luke 19: 27.) We were told not to lie. However, we read about how Jesus lied when it suited him. (See Mattill, A. J. Sweet Jesus, p. 103) We remember the part about not stealing, but we heard nothing about Jesus’ habit of stealing pigs, wheat, donkeys, cash, cows, olive oil, and figs. (op. cit. p. 31-33.)

Perhaps more critical than all of the above inconsistencies and silences is the confusion about what, exactly, was J.C.’s central message? The problem of discerning a “central message” is confounded not because there isn’t one, but because there are too many. If one asks the average Christian what was Jesus’ essential message to us, they look at you as if you must be the stupidest person they have ever met. Then, they explain patiently that, “God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son to die for us so as to atone for our sins, and that if you would simply believe in him, you could have a sort of second life, ever-lasting, in a place called heaven.” Now, at first you must try to ignore the sheer imbecility of what you just heard, and ask a few follow-up questions. You may ask something like, “Well, how can I ‘believe on him’ as the bible phrases it, when I am not clear about his full message and his teachings?” The Christian has a ready answer. “You can read the bible and there you will learn all about his wonderful message to us.”

“I already did that,” you might say, “ but then I became even more confused.” As mentioned above, there seems to be hundreds of messages, often with conflicting ideas and pronouncements. You might also add that you were a bit confused as to whether you should pay more attention to Peter’s Jewish ‘works-based’ Christianity, or to Paul’s Gentile ‘faith-based’ Christianity. You confess further confusion when you read about the early Gnostic Christian’s ‘knowledge’ (Gnosis) based Christianity. Despite all your reading, you say, you are still “unclear on the concept.” At this point the Christian will generally say something like, “Jesus loves you anyway” and walk away.

The summary point here is that because of the great amount of hopelessly conflicting information and the lack of any definitive information on everything about Jesus—his looks, lineage, biography, nature (three in one; one in three?), character, moral worthiness, message, etc.—it is clear, at least to this writer, that there is simply no one underneath this great pile of b.s. to see. (BASED ON YOUR INCORRECT DATA, I WOULD COME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION. HOWEVER, WHEN YOUR DATA IS CORRECTED, A FUNNY THING HAPPENS…)

I took the liberty to color-code your response. (All the capitalized text)

This post has been edited by HanSolo: Oct 30 2005, 06:56 PM

Abram Oct 30 2005, 06:46 PM
Post #127

Unregistered

Before anyone bothers to reply to this, would it be possible to see some form of proof for the claims you make? That said, I'm only going to reply to one part... since replying to the lot would require more time than you deserve.

Are you asking me to reply to a 15 page essay, with footnote references and a complete bibliography of all my critiques? I'm sorry my friend, but a scholarly rebuttal would take days, and I’m not going to invest that kind of time. People asked for my objections and I have given them. I will however provide you with some general sources that you can use to verify my assertions.

This is a problem... since Mithraism was a military religion in the Roman empire.
Why is that a problem? Because it was known to be such in 67 B.C. which places it well before Christianity.

First of all you need to realize that our understanding of Classical Polytheism is extremely limited. (a) The so called Mystery Cults were highly secretive. ( Most (but not all) of the Mithraic data extant is iconographic, not inscriptional. This means we need to interpret the meaning, which is incredibly speculative and difficult. To this day we still don't even know for certain what the depiction of Mithra slaying the bull represents. If you ask 10 different Classical scholars you will likely get at least 5 different answers. So that's the lay of the land, just for the record. You may believe me or disbelieve me at your discretion. Many skeptics claim to be interested in the truth, well if you do some research you will discover that what I am telling you is the “truth” as far as modern (post 1960) Mithraic scholarship is concerned.

Other known facts of Mithraism...
Purification through a ritualistic baptism was required of the faithful, who also took part in a ceremony in which they drank wine and ate bread to symbolize the body and blood of the god. Sundays were held sacred, and the birth of the god was celebrated annually on December the 25th. After the earthly mission of this god had been accomplished, he took part in a Last Supper with his companions before ascending to heaven, to forever protect the faithful from above.

the god Mithras was actually incarnated into the human form of the Saviour

Mithras was born of Anahita, an immaculate virgin mother

He was mediator between heaven and earth and was a member of a Holy Trinity.

The worshippers of Mithras held strong beliefs in a celestial heaven and an infernal hell. (A belief that doesn't exist in the OT, by the way...)

They believed that the benevolent powers of the god would sympathize with their suffering and grant them the final justice of immortality and eternal salvation in the world to come.

They looked forward to a final day of Judgment in which the dead would resurrect, and to a final conflict that would destroy the existing order of all things to bring about the triumph of light over darkness.

Honestly, where are you getting your information because most of it is highly inaccurate.

Finally, the religion of Mithraism that the Romans adopted was the EXACT SAME RELIGION that the Persians had... that is not in doubt.

You are basing your conceptions on what Dr. Cumont proposed in 1903, which has been overturned by an overwhelming scholarly consensus in the last four decades. He took the Persian-Roman equivalency as the premise for his entire body of work. But since his publication of Textes et monuments figures relatifs aux mysteres de Mithra in 1896, his theory has been seriously challenged, and today it is considered to be overturned.

The most exhaustive critiques of his work are:

Beck, R. Planetary Gods and Planetary Orders of the Mysteries of Mithras. "Etudes Preacuteliminaires aux Religions Orientales dans l'Empire Romain" Vol. 9 (Leiden, 1988).

Bianchi, U., ed. et al. La Soteriologia dei Culti Orientali Nell'impero Romano (Leiden, 1982).

Hinnells, J., ed. "Mithraic Studies." II vols. (Manchester, 1975).

As far as popular publications go, this is probably your best single resource:

Clauss, Manfred. The Roman Cult of Mithras: The God and His Mysteries (Edinburgh U. Press, 2000).

Still think you're right?Not listed in the credited works... try looking through those that ARE listed before trying to hand-wave it away.You don't know much about Osiris, Isis and Horus, do you?

Osiris was torn into 14 parts. Isis searched for these parts and whenever she found a part, SHE BURIED IT!

No, she did not piece it together and shag it, she buried it piece by piece.

You are correct in part, but your understanding of Egyptian polytheism needs correction. The Isis-Osiris cult (and indeed Egyptian religion in general) was not a monolithic entity, there were regional variations that were not only accepted, but encouraged. In some traditions Isis was the mother of Horus, in others Hathor was the mother of Horus, in some traditions she was the wife of Horus, in others she was the wife of Osiris. But the major legend, typically referred to as the "Legend of Osiris and Isis" involves Osiris dying (as you said being cut up) and Isis piecing him back together so she can have sex with his phallus and produce the son Horus.

Two standard texts you might try that will help clear up the confusion:

Shafer, Byron E., ed. Religion in Ancient Egypt: Gods, Myths, and Personal Practice (Cornell U. Press, 1991).

Budge, E. A. Wallis. Egyptian Religion: Egyptian Ideas of the Future Life - Library of the Mystic Arts (Citadel Press, 1991).

Guess what? A little investigation shows that you're dead wrong...Most of them do... why? Because it was a very common belief that such births were visited by Magi...

I understand that there are a tremendous number of pop-culture books out there; the Christ Conspiracy, Sixteen Crucified Saviors, et al. Some of them make good, valid points. But unfortunately, most of them are FAR too liberal with their interpretations. Only a handful of them are scholarly. See: Price, Wells, and Hoffmann for criticisms that are at least made in an academic manner.

Of course, with the amazing lack of research you've done on this subject already, should I be surprised that you're wrong, again?Prove it's inaccurate...
Oh, I forgot... you didn't research any of this. If you did, you'd have found it's highly accurate.

I'm very sorry, but most of it is not. Strangely enough, the author did not mention the Phoenician deity Melqart, which was in fact a dying savior god. But that is a separate issue.

November 1, 2005

Abram Oct 30 2005, 06:56 PM
Post #128

Unregistered

Umm. Not quite true.

"He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation"

This is a mithraic inscription which has been preserved. It is inside a mithraeum that lies beneath the current Vatican in Rome.

Sound familiar?

Yes it does, it is actually one of Zarathustra's sayings from the 11th century Shahnameh tradition of the Persian Avesta. In short, it's not associated with even the Persian Mithra, nevermind the Roman Mithra.

Refer to the following for attribution of that saying to Zarathustra:

Vermaseren, Maarten. Mithras, the Secret God. Megaw, Vincent, trans., et al. (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1963).

Abram Oct 30 2005, 07:56 PM
Post #132

Unregistered

Since Mithraism died out in the 5th century, and the vatican has been a papal residence also since the 5th century, how did this inscription end up underneath the vatican in the 11th century?

I think you better check your sources better.

With all due respect, I think you will find that it is your sources which are mistaken.

The original source for that quote is The Jesus Mysteries: Was the Original Jesus a Pagan God? by Freke and Gandy. On page 49 of their book they produce that quote as follows:

An inscription reads:

He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation.

In the endnote for this quotation [endnote 183] they cite Mystery Religions in the Ancient World by Joscelyn Godwin as their source. They cite page 28 of his book if you'd like to check. Unfortunately for their readers, Godwin does not attribute that saying to Mithra, nor does he imply that it was underneath the Vatican. What I'm saying, and what Vermaseren says in his book The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries: Cosmology and Salvation in the Ancient World is that the origin of that saying does not come from an inscription, but rather from an 11th century Persian text.

I have two of the books in front of me, so I'm not making this up. I would recommend that those of you who want to know the truth behind this issue either purchase these three books, or check them out of your local library. You will find that what I am saying is correct. That quotation is from a medieval Persian text, therefore if we are going to talk about borrowing, wouldn't it be more likely to be in the other direction?

I think too many of you are not treating what you read online critically. By all means, check up on my sources and see for yourself. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.

Abram Oct 30 2005, 11:19 PM
Post #142

Unregistered

Here is a pretty good (not too long) article about Mithraism and Christianity which pokes holes in most everything that Abram said about it.

I either gotta protect this one, or change my user name.

Just as an aside, I'm always very skeptical of articles that don't have footnotes or references.

November 1, 2005

Abram Yesterday, 12:28 AM
Post #154

Unregistered

(article)

Few writers mention the cult. The evidence for it is mostly archaeological—the remains of mithraic temples, monumental inscriptions, the iconography of the god and sculptures, sculpted reliefs, wall paintings and mosaics.

Since I have been accused of being wrong about just about everything I said about the Cult of Mithras, let's engage the issue in closer detail:

(Abram)
First of all you need to realize that our understanding of Classical Polytheism is extremely limited. (a) The so called Mystery Cults were highly secretive. ( Most (but not all) of the Mithraic data extant is iconographic, not inscriptional. This means we need to interpret the meaning, which is incredibly speculative and difficult. To this day we still don't even know for certain what the depiction of Mithra slaying the bull represents. If you ask 10 different Classical scholars you will likely get at least 5 different answers. So that's the lay of the land, just for the record. You may believe me or disbelieve me at your discretion. Many skeptics claim to be interested in the truth, well if you do some research you will discover that what I am telling you is the “truth” as far as modern (post 1960) Mithraic scholarship is concerned.

(article)
If Mithras had Iranian roots then the Roman cult of Mithraism must have begun in the east of the Roman empire and spread by soldiers, eastern merchants—called "Syrians"and slaves, in the middle of the first century BC.

Why must it have originated in the 1st century B.C.? Do we have carbon dates? Paleographic dates of texts or inscriptions? Reliable, second hand attestation from multiple authors of antiquity?

(article)
Roman soldiers met worshippers of the god, Mithras, in the provinces to the east of the empire, adjacent to Persia, and Plutarch confirms that Mithraism entered the Empire from Persia when Pompey's Roman soldiers encountered pirates from Cilicia—the home in Asia Minor of Paul the apostle—practising the "secret rites of Mithras" and were impressed by the god's high precepts.

Plutarch lived from the middle of the 1st century A.D. until the early 2nd century A.D. Does he indicate the time period that the cult of Mithras arose in Rome? Why doesn’t this essay indicate which of Plutarch’s multiple Lives volumes that this is excerpted from? If this is a proper essay, why isn’t there a proper reference so we can peer review the information? We also have to remember to treat Plutarch’s information critically, because let’s face it, this is the same guy who wrote biographies of mythical figures such as Heracles and Romulus.

(article)
Christians, desperate to make Mithraism dependent on Christianity, insist that it only started in the second half of the first century AD, despite Plutarch's plain statement. Since he lived at this very time, he can hardly have thought a new Roman fad was over a century old.

We also need to take into consideration that nearly all of our archaeological evidence from the cult of Mithras dates from the middle of the second century A.D. onward. And it is quite plausible that the religion had changed considerably from its alleged founding in the first century B.C. until the second century when it undoubtedly began to interact with Christianity. Typically, in situations when our archaeological data is does not quite match up with our textual data, and when the textual data is from a lone, somewhat questionable source, we tend to treat the archaeological data as the primary source and the textual evidence as a secondary source.

So essentially we can say that we KNOW that the Mithras cult of Rome began at least as early as ca. 150 A.D., and possibly dates back as far as the first century B.C.E.

Mythra has asserted that my previous statement “it is not at all clear that Mithraism preceded Christianity" was incorrect. He also stated:

(Mythra)
Then, when Crazy Tiger points to 67 BCE as a date that we knew for sure it existed among Roman soldiers,

As I think it is now clear, my initial statement was accurate. Crazy Tiger’s statement may be accurate, but we cannot “know for sure” as he put it, that the cult of Mithras dates back to 67 B.C. All we have is the word of a Roman author who was writing 100-150 years after the fact. An author who wrote a biography of two mythical figures, Heracles and Romulus. We have to ask ourselves, where did he get his information? Was he relying on hearsay? Perhaps from folk traditions that had sprung up from the soldiers? Was it accurate? Was it someone’s best guess?

We must be critical here, because frankly, as those of you who regularly engage the writings of antiquity will know, it was not uncommon for writers to wildly speculate as to the origins of people, places, and religious systems. For example, Tacitus, writing ca. 110 A.D. speculated that the Jews were “fugitives from the island of Crete, who settled on the nearest coast of Africa about the time when Saturn was driven from his throne by the power of Jupiter”, or that perhaps they were “of Ethiopian origin, who in the time of king Cepheus were driven by fear and hatred of their neighbors to seek a new dwelling place.”(1) He then goes on to further speculate that “a disease, which horribly disfigured the body, broke out over Egypt; that king Bocchoris, seeking a remedy…was bidden to cleanse his realm, and to convey into some foreign land this race…Moyses, wishing to secure for the future his authority over the nation, gave them a novel form of worship…”(2)

If we weren’t reading this critically, we might be inclined to take Tacitus’ speculations as being true, and believe that the Israelites were a Late Bronze Age I civilization that migrated out of Egypt. However, when we examine the archaeological evidence, we find that the Exodus tradition is not plausible because out “of the more than forty sites that the biblical texts claim were conquered, no more than two or three of those that have been archaeological investigated are even potential candidates for such an Israelite destruction.”(3) Instead, the archaeological evidence suggests that early Israelites appear to have been an Iron Age I civilization that was native to Canaan.(4) Thus if we had used Tacitus’ statements to assign a date to the origin of the Israelite culture we would have been perhaps as much as 300-500 years off the mark.

What is the point I am trying to make? That when it comes to ancient Near Eastern history, we need to be very conservative about assigning dates based solely on limited textual evidence. Therefore, it is more scholarly of us to date the birth of the Roman Cult of Mithras to no later than ca. 150 A.D., and potentially as early as ca. 50-60 B.C. Perhaps now Crazy Tiger and Mythra have a better understanding of why it is sometimes easier for those of us who engage in this sort of analysis on a regular basis to use vague language in regards to setting dates that penetrate deep into antiquity, where oftentimes the available data is fragmentary and obscure to say the least. It is not that we are avoiding the issue, but rather that when we are trying to have a friendly, casual discussion on a Sunday evening at 9pm, we’d rather not have to type out a three page essay with four footnotes merely to support our dating of an obscure, extinct Roman cult group. That’s why we refer laypeople to published papers, journals, and books that have already done the work for us…

1. Tacitus. Complete Works of Tacitus. Hadas, Moses, trans. (Toronto: McGraw-Hill, 1942), History 5.2, pg. 658.

2. Tacitus. Complete Works of Tacitus. Hadas, Moses, trans. (Toronto: McGraw-Hill, 1942), History 5.3-4, pg. 658-59.

3. Denver, William G. Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? (Grand Rapids: W.B.E. Publishing, 2003), pg. 71.

4. Denver, William G. Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? (Grand Rapids: W.B.E. Publishing, 2003), pg. 217.

November 1, 2005

Abram Yesterday, 12:45 AM
Post #155

Unregistered

(article)

The story of Mithras begins with the Demiurge oppressing mankind. Mithras is incarnated from a rock on 25 December, the old date of the midwinter solstice. He enters the world, observed by lowly shepherds, on the darkest day of the year—he is the Light of the World. During his incarnation he helps mankind like Orpheus and carries out miracles like Jesus. In an abstract way, he dies for the good of mankind. He kills the sacred bull, the equinoctial sun which revivifies the earth, but the bull is an aspect of himself, for he is the sun. So he kills himself, just as God, the Father, kills himself by offering himself as a victim in his aspect as God, the Son. As an annual sun god he is resurrected. His mission done he holds a last supper with his disciples and returns to Heaven, the level beyond the cosmos, in the solar chariot. He will be victorious over evil at the last battle and will sit in judgement on mankind, when he will lead the Chosen Ones over a river of fire to immortality.

Christians are quite desperate to prove that Mithras was not a dying and rising god.

The major problem with this section is that they are not providing direct quotes from the Avesta, the Bundahishn, the Denkard, or the Shahnameh. When making assertions of this magnitude, it really is meaningless unless the primary data is made available. Otherwise, how can we be certain they aren't doing what I have already demonstrated the authors of The Jesus Mysteries: Was the Original Jesus a Pagan God have done in regards to the alleged Eucharist quote of the Roman Mithra cult. There is just too much misinformation floating around on the Internet, particularly from Pagan-Copycat enthusiasts, and Conservative Christian apologists.

The author of this essay should also point out that the surviving manuscript tradition of the Persian Avesta was not written down until sometime between 1400 - 1200 A.D. And epic rhyme, the Shahnameh, was not completed until ca. 1010 A.D. Unfortunately, with textual evidence of this late date, we cannot effectively argue that parallels between Christianity and the Persian cult of Mithra (from what we know of them in the Avesta and related texts) are the result of religious syncretism or diffusion. To argue for syncretism, we must make use of the archaeological and limited textual data extant from the Roman cult of Mithra, which as we have demonstrated is both far too vague (iconography without accompanying text results in highly subjective interpretations), and far too late to be of much use.

Perhaps future archaeological discoveries will shed further light into this controversy. To be totally honest, I wouldn't be surprised if the skeptics turn out to be right on this one in the end. But academically speaking, there just isn't a strong case to be made at the moment. More 1st century B.C. and 1st century A.D. data needs to be uncovered.

Abram Yesterday, 03:25 PM
Post #169

Unregistered

Pop quiz: What is the age of the oldest extant copies of the Jewish “holy scripture” and what is the age of the oldest extant copies of the New Testament. Even though the Avesta was codified in the 1200’s, the individual books exist in much older copies, most around the same time as the oldest copies of the OT and NT.

I'm sorry mako, but your information is incorrect. Normally I would quote a text I have from a Persian scholar, Vesta Sarkhosh Curtis, but if there is one lesson I have learned here, quite painfully, its that you tend to put more credence in online evidence. Again, from your own skeptical encyclopedia:

The Avestas were collated over several hundred years. The oldest portion, the Gathas, are the hymns thought to have been composed by Zoroaster himself. The later portions constitute elaborations of Zoroastrian thinking along with detailed descriptions of ritual practices. The texts were transmitted orally for centuries, with the earliest written fixation known dating to 1278.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avesta

Or for those few of you who do use actual books, you might consult the following for a discussion on the dates and modes of transmission for the Persian sacred texts:

Curtis, Sarkhosh Vesta. Persian Myths (Austin: U. of Texas, 1998), 8-11.

So the age of the extant Avesta means nothing.

I'm afraid it means everything mako. The oldest Hebrew Bible / Old Testament texts are those discovered at Qumran, some of which date to the 1st and 2nd centuries B.C.E. Almost fifteen centuries older than the Avesta I might add. Physical remains of New Testament texts date as far back as the 2nd century A.D. Almost eleven centuries older than the Avesta. Using the Avesta as evidence against Christianity or Judaism is simply a poor method of argumentation, as all of the evidence extant simply eviscerates your arguments.

We need to look at the languages that these “holy scriptures” were written in to get any idea of their age. Because the language of the Hebrew sacred writings are epigraphically the same in word usage, context and sentence structure as other post-exilic extant inscriptions and literary examples, it is easy to show that the Jewish scriptures were written after the return from Babylonia, during the initial set-up phase of the Temple State demanded by the Persian government as an acting imperial “governor” or control.

Again you are mistaken. You will have a very difficult time finding even a handful of liberal New Testament scholars who believe that the entire corpus of Hebrew sacred texts was written in a post 538 B.C.E. environment. However, one such scholar is Thomas Thompson. See:

Thompson, Thomas L. Early History of the Israelite People from the Written and Archaeological Sources (Leiden: Brill, 1992).

The more mainstream, critical academic view put the Elohim-source and Jahwist-source to the eighth and ninth centuries B.C. There are various parts of the Torah that indicate that the authors were writing in the Dual Monarchy period (ca. 925 - 722 B.C.) And as we know, when the Assyrians destroyed Israel ca. 722 B.C., all that remained of the Israelites was the territory of Judah. Although it is certainly possible that two Judah authors wrote the J and E sources much later, but one would be left with the following questions:

1. Why did the E source (who if he was writing later, would have been from Judah) charge his account with such a pro Israel, anti Judah bias? And why does he seem to focus on the geography and political climate of Israel, which at that time would no longer exist?

2. Assyrian inscriptions of the conquest of Israel attest to the general accuracy of the account in the Tanakh. Although the biblical account basically asserts that the Assyrian host was turned away by God at Jerusalem, the Assyrians say that they were paid off to let the city stand. This was an eighth century event, so if the ancient Israelites were not keeping records, and the Old Testament was not written until after 538 B.C. as you have indicated, then how did they retain such (generally) accurate knowledge for eight or more generations?

3. The Tell-Dan inscription indicates that there may very well have been a Davidic Dynasty, which would have existed ca. 965 B.C.

4. Many of the cities mentioned in Exodus and Numbers are consistent with an eighth century Israelite environment (interestingly enough not a fourteenth or fifteen century B.C. environment, which would be necessary for the Exodus to have been a historical event.)

For these reasons, and numerous others, most mainline, critical scholars believe that J and E were writing in the eighth or ninth centuries B.C. The P source, and compilation and redaction of the documents into the Torah was more likely done during either the reformation of King Josiah (ca. 609 B.C.) as hinted at in II Kings 22, or perhaps as late as the Babylonian (ca. 586-538 B.C.) or even the Persian Period (post 538 B.C.) as hinted at in the Book of Ezra.

So your statement "it is easy to show that the Jewish scriptures were written after the return from Babylonia" is both irresponsible, and not supported by the evidence. Which is why most critical New Testament scholars in the United States, Christian and secular alike, reject it. There are however a number of European scholars, German in particular, who are in general agreement with you. If you want to pursue this line of argumentation you might consider learning German so you learn how to make the argument properly from those who do it for a living.

We know that the NT was written primarily in Greek, although some scholars contend that there were Aramaic copies, without any proof or extant examples.

I am in total agreement with you. There is no reason to assume that Matthew was written in Aramaic. And the other three clearly were not.

Dating the NT is relatively simple, Paul seems to be early, around 40 CE, Mark around 85-90 CE and Matthew around 115 CE, John possibly (if you buy the PS51) around 124 CE and Luke and Acts around 145-150 CE (and maybe even later)

Anyone who believes that dating the NT is "relatively simple" clearly does not understand the topic. It is complex, convoluted, controversial, highly emotional and almost completely subjective, which is why there is such a large range of dates proposed by the various camps; conservative, moderate, and liberal scholars.

The traditional dating of the Avesta is sometimes in the 7th or 6th centuries BCE, between 660-583 BCE. There are scholars that contend for a much older date.

Yes, we project the date of the belief system initiated by Zoroaster back to that date or earlier. However, and this is a major point, textual and inscriptional evidence detailing the specifics of the Persian religious system during this period is relatively scant. We have the Avesta to be sure, but it is a product of a medieval environment. The oral traditions that it represented may very well have been passed down faithfully for 1500 years or more. But are you sure you want to go there? If we go there, then we are allowing for the accurate transmission of oral traditions over 1500 years...which then allows conservatives to say "See! Even the rabid skeptics admit it! The gospels and the Torah were both accurately passed down by oral tradition! Praise Jesus!"

Do not think of me as an adversary, think of me as someone who has come to sharpen your swords; which frankly have become very, very dull. If you are going to be skeptics who purport to have found the "truth" by exercising your minds, then exercise them properly by digesting accurate information, not online, fundamentalist skeptic (or Christian apologetic) shash.

Be ex-Christians because you understand the issues well enough to realize that much of the Bible is fiction, not because you are every bit as ignorant of the (accurate) details as the fundamentalist Christians are.

November 1, 2005

Abram / Rameus Yesterday, 03:39 PM
Post #171

Unregistered

And for the record, I am no Christian. I am the farthest thing from it. This is your old friend Rameus, who has given up the online debating circuit to focus on his book and on finishing his academic pursuits. I dropped in briefly so see how my old friends were doing, and I found that some of the wolves had become sheep.

My intention was to intellectually challenge many of the poor, demonstrably false arguments in that essay in hopes of preventing my old friends from falling into the trap of being skeptical for the wrong reasons. (And also to have a bit of fun playing the part of an Ultra Liberal Christian.) I want you all to be able to smash the arguments of Christian apologists into tiny pieces. And to do that, you need to make sure that your information is crisp and accurate.

Give me five or ten years and I'll make sure everyone (in the English speaking world at least) will have access to a resource that is crammed with arguments, and more importantly, absolutely all of the primary sources that exist. Until then, you need to be a bit more careful about what you digest from these online essays, particularly ones without references.

<End of Sermon>

Farewell my friends, perhaps I will make a point of dropping in once a year to check up on you in the future. And more importantly, to test the sharpness of your steel.

Your old friend,

Rameus

November 1, 2005

This comes as no surprise to me whatsoever.

I've noticed the same thing, but to be frank, I've spent enough time examining such claims by both sides. I didn't feel that I needed to do it again just because I had found the same old arguments (on both sides, mind you) on a different forum.

November 1, 2005

In my defense I have to say that most of what I posted was NOT what I believed to be fact... generally it was there to show that what you had posted as fact was questionable. (yeah, what you posted did manage to come across as "this is fact so believe it")

I know damn well that all too much on the 'net is bollocks, and what I do now is show that those who are using the 'net to back-up their argument are on very shaky ground.

Saying that, some of what is on the 'net is crisp and accurate... sometimes even crisper and more accurate than what you can find elsewhere. You just need to find the stuff and not suspend disbelief while you're looking.

November 1, 2005

I read over the thread and yes, there were inaccuracies, yes, the internet seems to have been used; but the thing that bothered me the most was the mean spirited dishonesty that you showed. You did much as a pool shark would do while reeling in his latest victim, what you did was like Mike Tyson conning a 90 pound kid, who had only two lessons in boxing, into the ring to go one-on-one, it was similar to a college sophomore competing in a spelling bee with 3rd graders, it was mean, vile and totally dishonest! Your condescending manner was evident before you left and it seems to have grown over the months that you have been gone. If this is so, then, to me, Christ Cult Trolls would be more welcome. Just remember, very few of us are professional scholars, most of us work at jobs that require skills and talents that you may or may not have. Your air of intellectual superiority and condesending attitude will bode you ill in the future. Also remember, Einstein did the majority of his work prior to recieving his doctorate and remember that talented men with lesser degrees than yours have made most of the breakthroughs in science, medicine, history, philosophy, et al, rather than Doctorate level scholars. If this is your version of "publish or perish", it is not appreciated by this old man and hopefully by the intelligent of this forum - Heimdall

November 1, 2005

The discussion/debate in question was helpful to me. If there was any anomosity or condescension, it certainly was evident in both directions. IMO Christianity is based on quite flimsy evidence, and the unconvincing attempts at apologetics that we all witness here by theists reflect this. Their position boils down to a 'grasping at straws', an appeal to emotions to believe 'six impossible things before breakfast'.

That said, there also exists much in the way of unsubstantiated, even emotionalistic arguments for the various theories used to discredit the christian/theistic viewpoints. Being a non-academic, and admittedly fairly new to these issues, I for one, have a tendency to be attracted to any idea or theory that might possibly bolster my position. But that puts me only on the same level as the theistic apologists that come here. I can no more defend my position than they can theirs. Of course, the burden of proof is on those making the positive assertion, so I am thankfully spared having to do so for the most part.

I guess the bottom line for me is that I don't want my position to sound as emotional and unsubstantiated as those at which I tend to scoff. Rameus' point is an important one, in my opinion, and I intend to take it to heart.

** edited for spelling **

November 1, 2005

Not being a "scholar" of any sort, I'm of two minds (or maybe three) on this subject.

I agree with the POINT that Rameus has raised. We DO tend to uncritically accept internet sources that bolster our positions. And in doing so, we run the risk of making ourselves look foolish if we accept unproven or fallacious arguments.

Not being "scholarly" myself, this is why I tend to avoid using "sources" as part of any debates. I haven't the skill or level of critical acumen necessary to determine if someone's literary pedigree is "up to snuff". I'd rather depend upon my OWN study and critical examination of the bible. It is the ONLY "primary source" that I can be certain.

That said, I STILL don't see what is SO awful in accepting information from an internet resource that doesn't "name it's source", or worse, "doesn't quote from a primary source". As near as I can tell, there are NO "primary sources". EVERYTHING is hearsay. EVERYTHING is twice and three times removed. No matter WHO you quote, THEY got it from somebody else. Who got THEIR info from somewhere else, and so on. What is so "primary" about any of it?

And besides, just because someone doesn't name a reference, does that automatically invalidate what they've said? In order for my words to possess "power" they must now be authenticated by someone else's words? "Truth" can't stand on its own merit? ("Scholarship" sure is funny.)

It doesn't bother me if someone's degree is in literature, and yet they dare to critique THEOLOGY. So what? I have NO degree, and I critique the bible and the church and religion all the live long day! I'm not picky about "doctrinal degrees" and such drivel. Just so long as the ARGUMENTS are valid and not logically fallacious, I'm good.

So, yes, while I will agree that we SHOULD remain skeptical of everything we read and use, even IF it supports our treasured position, I'm not all that overburdoned with the "value" of a "scholar's view" anyway.

As far as I'm concerned, MY opinion or knowledge is just as valuable and valid as the OPINION or "research" of any snapperhead "scholar". I'm not impressed with anyone's credentials, be ye theologian, historian or Doctor of All That Is Important.

After all, how much "scholarship" does it take to refute "Santa Claus"? I'll use these same minimalist skills to take on "Christ" any day of the week.

Oh well. I'm sure I'm "wrong" in my "uneducated" opinion. And I'm certain someone will come along to enlighten me. That's fine. All I know is, I won't lose any sleep questioning someone's "scholarly credentials" or "references" when they agree with me that "Jesus is a myth". So long as they don't claim that the Loch Ness Monster told them so, we're good.

November 1, 2005

but the thing that bothered me the most was the mean spirited dishonesty that you showed. You did much as a pool shark would do while reeling in his latest victim, what you did was like Mike Tyson conning a 90 pound kid, who had only two lessons in boxing, into the ring to go one-on-one, it was similar to a college sophomore competing in a spelling bee with 3rd graders, it was mean, vile and totally dishonest! Your condescending manner was evident before you left and it seems to have grown over the months that you have been gone.
100101[/snapback]

Firstly, you must remember that when I popped in I was role playing a Christian debater. So some of the inflammatory material was calculated, not genuine. On the other hand, some of it was genuine. There was a tremendous amount of hostility towards my presence here. I got the distinct impression that educated Christians who can support their arguments, perhaps as well as or better than most of the enlightened residents here, were not welcome.

Also, if I recall Heimdall, you used to support my inflammatory posts against the many Christian apologists and fundamentalists that came knocking on our door. You never called foul then, even in those times when it was clear that there was an unfair match-up. So if it was alright for me to forcefully smash the arguments of misled Christian fundamentalists who were in the wrong then, why is it "mean, vile, and totally dishonest" for me to apply the same measure of calculated force and argumentation against one of your own? Certainly I was being a bit rude and condescending about it. But then again, so were my opponents. Look back though the six threads I participated in and ask yourself who was being far more civil.

The hypocrisy reeks my old friend.

Your air of intellectual superiority and condesending attitude will bode you ill in the future.

The reason that I posted this thread was not to feel intellectually superior. In my experience, online debating has always been generally more of an exercise in futility and frustration, rather than one of emotional satisfaction. My intention was to point out what I considered to be a critical lack of healthy skepticism in regards to what is written by online skeptical apologists. If we are going to purport to be the enlightened ones, shouldn’t we not attempt to be a bit more enlightened than those which we condemn as ignorant?

Not being a "scholar" of any sort, I'm of two minds (or maybe three) on this subject.

In my opinion, being a scholar isn't all about credentials. It is about having the ability to be critical of everything you digest, and articulating your arguments in a way which can stand up to scrutiny. There are numerous people on this forum (past and present) who I consider to be scholars in that regard. But there are also others who need to be a bit more conservative about what they say, and how they argue it.

If I offended you or anyone else in the community, then you have my deepest apologies. My intention was to make a point, one that I considered to be an important one. In any event, take the spirit of my remarks as you will. All I am trying to do is encourage all of you to peer review one another, and keep your swords sharp.

Again, farewell friends.

Rameus

November 1, 2005

The hypocrisy reeks my old friend.

The hipocrisy, my friend, is treating your friends in the same manner as you do the "enemy"! The way you treated these folks was mean and vile, they were supposed to be your friends and comrades. A person that betrays the trust of such, is of poor character and soon loses his friends.

My intention was to point out what I considered to be a critical lack of healthy skepticism in regards to what is written by online skeptical apologists

You could have just pointed it out, your dishonest charade was unnecessary and contemptous of those who looked up to you and trusted you. - a very saddened Heimdall

November 1, 2005

Rameus proved one point, that can be a tough lesson to learn:

One can never know who it is your talking to, and how much they really know, and what information they might be sitting on.

From now on, I propose that we don't take for granted that a visiting guest, Christian or non-Christian, is an "idiot" or "uneducated" or "fool" or any other nice name we can invent for them. Sure, some of them do really deserve to be called that, but let us start with assuming the person on the other end know stuff that we don't know, and instead of flaming them, let's fish for the information and knowledge they have. There even might be situations where a Christian knows more about a subject than anyone else here, and I don't want us to loose our edge of rational and logical thinking just because we don't agree with our opponent. Basically what I'm trying to say is, everyone should talk more facts and less ad hominem.

I don't want to end up in the situation where we all have come to some common agreement of a concept that is wrong, just because we refused to listen to a person we didn't like at first, or because we scared them away with comments like "get out of here". Hold off on those comments until we for sure know that our arguments are valid, and the opponent's arguments are without foundation.

Otherwise I'm afraid we could argue with people and we are the ones looking like fools.

And to swing Hans' Horrid Hammer the other way, Rameus, we don't gladly approve play-acting on the site, and spoofing can be used as a reason to be blocked. I know you're an old friend of the site, and we can let it slide. On the other hand I think the lesson was a good lesson. Just make sure you have the approval from Dave or Bruce before you go into that game again. (And I'd like to see more people, with the same level of knowledge, participating on this site.)

And secondly, in the Lion's Den section, you have to expect debate that is much less moderated, while Colosseum is the section where we expect fair play and professional conduct. Much of your responses could be contributed to the fact that you debated in the Lion's Den, and not in Colosseum.

Hans

November 1, 2005

I was under no illusion that I could hold my own with "Abram". I only meant to buzz around his head and keep him distracted while waiting for the A team to show up. Hell, I've only been an Ex-C for six months.

And, like Heimdall says, some of us have day jobs.

November 1, 2005

The hipocrisy, my friend, is treating your friends in the same manner as you do the "enemy"!

My enemy, Heimdell, is propaganda and misinformation. As such Christianity, Judaism and Islam tend to fall under that category. But make no mistake, skeptical propaganda artists and apologists are no allies of mine.

You could have just pointed it out, your dishonest charade was unnecessary and contemptous of those who looked up to you and trusted you. - a very saddened Heimdall

Consider it a fire drill. Just be glad that report cards aren’t being issued…

And to swing Hans' Horrid Hammer the other way, Rameus, we don't gladly approve play-acting on the site, and spoofing can be used as a reason to be blocked. I know you're an old friend of the site, and we can let it slide. On the other hand I think the lesson was a good lesson. Just make sure you have the approval from Dave or Bruce before you go into that game again. (And I'd like to see more people, with the same level of knowledge, participating on this site.)

Block away. When I return in 6-12 months, I will conduct another fire drill in a similar manner. If that violates the rules in a manner that is worthy of banishment, then might I suggest that you block my account now rather than wait for the next violation.

Rameus

November 1, 2005

Another thing that I think is just as bad, is discounting EVERYTHING on the internet, just because there are some things here that are disreputable. If you read enough, it's a little easier to filter out the conjecture from the hard facts. Websites like "Earlychristianwritings.com" are still outstanding sources for anyone wanting to do a little studying.

It's also wrong to discount EVERYTHING that Acharya S. wrote, just because some of her stuff is far-fetched. Her book is still an interesting read, and it still contains lots of accurate information. Just read it with a big grain of salt. It's not hard to tell when she's climbing out on a limb.

I know that Robert Price is more highly respected, and is more reserved in his conclusions. But, this stuff isn't easy to absorb for us ordinary folk. My eyes get blurry when I try to ingest too much "scholarly" data and opinions at once.

November 1, 2005

My enemy, Heimdell, is propaganda and misinformation. As such Christianity, Judaism and Islam tend to fall under that category. But make no mistake, skeptical propaganda artists and apologists are no allies of mine.
Consider it a fire drill. Just be glad that report cards aren’t being issued…

Block away. When I return in 6-12 months, I will conduct another fire drill in a similar manner. If that violates the rules in a manner that is worthy of banishment, then might I suggest that you block my account now rather than wait for the next violation.

Rameus

100174[/snapback]

Consider your wish granted.

November 1, 2005

Consider it a fire drill. Just be glad that report cards aren’t being issued…
Block away. When I return in 6-12 months, I will conduct another fire drill in a similar manner. If that violates the rules in a manner that is worthy of banishment, then might I suggest that you block my account now rather than wait for the next violation.

100174[/snapback]

No need to be agitated over my comment, it wasn't a warning, just a friendly tip that if you clear this "fire drill" with Bruce or Dave, then I don't see a problem with doing what you did. Personally, I think it was a good lesson, and I don't hold any contempt against you.

November 1, 2005

Block away. When I return in 6-12 months, I will conduct another fire drill in a similar manner. If that violates the rules in a manner that is worthy of banishment, then might I suggest that you block my account now rather than wait for the next violation.

Rameus

100174[/snapback]

Might I suggest that it would be more helpful if you would provide a list of sources that could be drawn upon when future debates of this sort arise? I'm sure Dave would place them properly in the archives.

Personally I avoid debates on issues where I'm not at least reasonably confident I have correct information to draw from. Mythology is far from my area of expertise so I plead out of these discussions. I believe most here would not claim scholarship in this and similar areas so someone such as yourself could be useful in at least pointing us in the right direction.

As others have stated, I have a business to run so I won't be running off to Rome to visit Mithrian (??) temple sites any time soon. In other words, a fire drill is not what we need, we need cliff notes or a slap on the butt and a point in the right direction.

And, I agree, it is important to remain skeptical about all information, not only that which is in disagreement with our own paradigm.

November 1, 2005

Ah, Jeez. I thought the only reason someone got banned around here was for spamming.

I thoroughly enjoyed this, but probably not for the reasons that Rameus did it. I think people get too hung up on debating things like the Christ myth, and don't spend nearly enough time discussing whether the faith even makes sense. I mean, really, who cares if Jesus existed? Mohammed did, that doesn't make Islam right.

But in any case, this was just... Rameus. Oh no, was Rameus disrespectful? For sticks' sake, when hasn't he been? I thought that was one of the things we valued about him. What a shame that when it's not directed against our "avowed enemies" it's a problem worthy of blocking and banning.

I guess the Jews get all the fun. It looks like ole Rameus accomplished two things today -- he demonstrated the necessity of critically examining sources and that the hypocrisy is knee deep around here these days.

November 1, 2005

Consider your wish granted.

100176[/snapback]

????

November 1, 2005

Ah, Jeez. I thought the only reason someone got banned around here was for spamming.

I thoroughly enjoyed this, but probably not for the reasons that Rameus did it. I think people get too hung up on debating things like the Christ myth, and don't spend nearly enough time discussing whether the faith even makes sense. I mean, really, who cares if Jesus existed? Mohammed did, that doesn't make Islam right.

But in any case, this was just... Rameus. Oh no, was Rameus disrespectful? For sticks' sake, when hasn't he been? I thought that was one of the things we valued about him. What a shame that when it's not directed against our "avowed enemies" it's a problem worthy of blocking and banning.

I guess the Jews get all the fun. It looks like ole Rameus accomplished two things today -- he demonstrated the necessity of critically examining sources and that the hypocrisy is knee deep around here these days.

100180[/snapback]

Agreed. I hope that you will reconsider Bruce.

November 1, 2005

If you actually dig down in Rameus's little diatribes and try and validate his assertions, you will find they are vacuous. I really have no idea what the little cult of personality with him is, but I would remind folks that ExC.net forums are a place to encourage Ex-Christians. It is not a place to pompously promote oneself. Rameus may be all he claims, unfortunately we only have his uncorroborated word for it. The guidelines are in place for a reason, and that is to encourage interaction between members that result in meaningful communication, assistance in leaving the religion and perhaps some acquisition of knowledge. Rameus specifically stated his intention to willfully violate the board guidelines. It seems that some of the members here, who are also in the "Rameus Cult", want to give him a special dispensation. Sorry, but hypocrisy means rules are applied to some but not others. If Rameus agrees to abide by the board rules that apply to everyone and if he contributes positively to the community, then he can be reconsidered. Of course, you can protest to Dave and Dave can set aside my decision. All I have done is applied the rules fairly, based upon Rameus' blatantly stated intention to not abide by the guidelines.

Bruce

November 1, 2005

It seems that some of the members here, who are also in the "Rameus Cult", want to give him a special dispensation.
100202[/snapback]

Oh yeah, that's what it's about. We're all in the "Rameus Cult." Gooba Gabba.

Nice way to lump and dismiss Bruce. The next time some Christian gives some bullshit reason for us leaving the church, I hope you remember that you're no better.

How 'bout you cite that little old guideline he threatened to violate. This is what he said:

Block away. When I return in 6-12 months, I will conduct another fire drill in a similar manner. If that violates the rules in a manner that is worthy of banishment, then might I suggest that you block my account now rather than wait for the next violation.

He said IF it violates the rules. All that Hans said was that spoofing MIGHT be a reason to block, without notification to the mods first. Rameus didn't express a wilful intention to violate the guidelines because, as far as I can see, there is no set guideline. How many other people have you banned based on "spoofing" (which I was under the impression was pretending to be someone that actually exists)? It actually appears to me that you are applying the "rules" inconsistently, or rather, applying one that didn't exist or was never applied until you got pissed off at Rameus.

Renee

Rameus' Sermon on Selective Skepticism

Recommended Posts

Guest Rameus

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Rameus

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Rameus

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Rameus

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Rameus

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Rameus

Link to comment

Share on other sites

HadouKen24

Link to comment

Share on other sites

crazy-tiger

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Heimdall

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dio

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Checkmate

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Rameus

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Heimdall

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Ouroboros

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Mythra

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Rameus

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Mythra

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Celsus

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Ouroboros

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Vigile

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest MalaInSe

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Vigile

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Vigile

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Celsus

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest MalaInSe

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Main Blog

Browse

Activity