The Pagan Gospel

[Mythra]

More plagiarism by anticipation. Those damn greeks. Every single one of em must have been under the influence of the devil. More of the "revolutionary" teachings of Jesus 500 years ahead of time.

 

Socrates: "Then we should never do wrong?"

 

Crito: "Never."

 

Socrates: "And should we not even try to avenge a wrong if we are wronged ourselves, as most would do, on the premise that we should never do wrong?"

 

Crito: "So it seems."

 

Socrates: "So, whould we do harm, Crito, or not?"

 

Crito: "I should say not, Socrates."

 

Socrates: "Well then is it just or unjust to repay injury with injury?"

 

Crito: "Unjust, I would think."

 

Socrates: Because doing harm to men is no different from doing wrong?"

 

Crito: "Exactly so."

 

Socrates: "So, we should never take revenge and never hurt anyone, even if we have been hurt."

 

Socrates concludes:

 

It is never right to do wrong and never right to take revenge; nor is it right to give evil, or in the case of one who has suffered some injury, to attempt to get even."

[dogmatically_challenged]

there's all kinds of people here.

 

I can't stand the hit and run christians who take at pot shot at ya with scripture and then run like a scared dog.

 

Speaking of dog, watch out for dogmatically challenged.  He's a really juvenile.  Hi doggie

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My all my fleas vacate my shaggy hide and and make thier home in your armpits. oops! wrong thread! hehe!

 

LOL Mythra!

 

 

BTW Mythra. Awsome thread man!

[Ouroboros]

My all my fleas vacate my shaggy hide and and make thier home in your armpits. oops! wrong thread! hehe!

 

LOL Mythra!

BTW Mythra. Awsome thread man!

[guacamole]

I'll leave it to you all to scrutinize the details, since I'm no expert.

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ric...ier/graves.html contains a critique of the Kersey Graves book Sixteen Crucified Saviors

 

Of particular interest are the statements:

 

All this is not to say Graves didn't have some things right. But you will never be able to tell what he has right from what he has wrong without totally redoing all his research and beyond, which makes him utterly useless to historians as a source. For example, almost all his sources on Krishna long postdate Christian-Nestorian influence on India. No pre-Christian texts on Krishna contain the details crucial to his case, apart from those few that were common among many gods everywhere. Can you tell from Graves which details are attested by early evidence, and which by late? That's a problem.

 

On the other side of the coin, consider his emphasis on the December 25 birth date as a common feature. This is one of the things he gets right, at least regarding Greco-Roman religion: all gods associated with the sun shared the sun's "birthday," erroneously identified as December 25 (it is actually the 21st). But for Jesus, we can actually trace when and why Jesus was assigned this birthday for political reasons in the 4th century, 300 years after Christianity began. Graves seems oblivious to the distinction between the origins of Christianity and its subsequent development. Yet no Christian in the beginning believed Jesus was born on December 25. But Graves obscures this fact, leading to false conclusions about the origins of the Christ story.

 

and

 

Although I have not exhaustively investigated this matter, I have confirmed only two real "resurrected" deities with some uncanny similarity to Jesus which are actually reported before Christian times, Zalmoxis and Inanna, neither of which is mentioned by Graves or John G. Jackson (another Gravesian author--though both mention Tammuz, for whom Inanna was mistaken in their day). This is apart from the obvious pre-Christian myths of Demeter, Dionysos, Persephone, Castor and Pollux, Isis and Osiris, and Cybele and Attis, which do indeed carry a theme of metaphorical resurrection, usually in the terms of a return or escape from the Underworld, explaining the shifting seasons. But these myths are not quite the same thing as a pre-Christian passion story. It only goes to show the pervasiveness in antiquity of an agricultural resurrection theme, and the Jesus story has more to it than that, although the cultural influence can certainly be acknowledged.

 

Ephasis in both places mine.

 

Anyone up to presenting arguments using citations from primary sources? (Note: Freke and Gandy do not count as a primary source...)

 

fwiw

guac.

[Cerise]

It only goes to show the pervasiveness in antiquity of an agricultural resurrection theme, and the Jesus story has more to it than that, although the cultural influence can certainly be acknowledged.

 

But does it really? How do you know that the Jesus story is more then an agricultural resurrection theme anyway?

[guacamole]

But does it really?  How do you know that the Jesus story is more then an agricultural resurrection theme anyway?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Whereas many of the other gods were literally argicultural deities, Jesus was not literally an "agricultural deity". I suppose on could try to shoe-horn the gospel into an agricultural myth, but that would be stretching out the booties.

[Cerise]

Whereas many of the other gods were literally argicultural deities, Jesus was not literally an "agricultural deity".  I suppose on could try to shoe-horn the gospel into an agricultural myth, but that would be stretching out the booties.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I happen to think genesis is very much agricultural myth. And maybe the story of Jesus is an extension of that myth.

[guacamole]

I happen to think genesis is very much agricultural myth.  And maybe the story of Jesus is an extension of that myth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What do you think an agricultural myth is, as opposed to a creation myth, and how do you think Genesis fits the description of agricultural as opposed to creation myth.

 

If the extension of the myth doesn't deal with an agricultural narrative as an agricultural narrative (as opposed to a metaphor or object lesson) does that make the extension an agricultural myth or something else?

[Cerise]

Genesis can be read as an oral history of the pre-agricultural Semites. For more information read here.

 

As to the difference between an agricultural myth and a creation myth, I would say that genesis is very much a creation myth, except it is about the creation of one culture, one society, not of the entire earth.

 

And as for connections, the son rising again to redeem the world and bring life to what was once dead sounds very agricultural indeed. Very "turn of the seasons" actually.

[Ouroboros]

Genesis can be read as an oral history of the pre-agricultural Semites.  For more information read here.

 

As to the difference between an agricultural myth and a creation myth, I would say that genesis is very much a creation myth, except it is about the creation of one culture, one society, not of the entire earth.

 

And as for connections, the son rising again to redeem the world and bring life to what was once dead sounds very agricultural indeed.  Very "turn of the seasons" actually.

And the baptizing, die and be reborn, like the mustard seed that has to die to grow to a big tree, fishermen called to fish people instead. Jesus is very strongly connected to agricultural myths, it's just well hidden in stories.

 

The sun has to die every night, to be reborn again in the morning to give life to the world. Like Jesus had to die, and be reborn to save the world.

[guacamole]

Genesis can be read as an oral history of the pre-agricultural Semites.  For more information read here.

 

That's doesn't make it an agricultural myth, that makes it an oral history-- two separate genres.

 

As to the difference between an agricultural myth and a creation myth, I would say that genesis is very much a creation myth, except it is about the creation of one culture, one society, not of the entire earth.

 

So then what defines an agricultural myth? Is Genesis primarily a creation myth or an agricultural myth?

 

And as for connections, the son rising again to redeem the world and bring life to what was once dead sounds very agricultural indeed.  Very "turn of the seasons" actually.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It sounds kinda fast and loose actually.

 

Can you cite me an example of an agricultural myth using primary sources in which the agricultural deity, literally dies and is ressurected in the narrative, in order to "redeem the world"?

 

fwiw

guac.

[guacamole]

And the baptizing, die and be reborn, like the mustard seed that has to die to grow to a big tree, fishermen called to fish people instead. Jesus is very strongly connected to agricultural myths, it's just well hidden in stories.

 

Are you sure you're not confusing metaphors and object lessons with mythic narratives?

 

The sun has to die every night, to be reborn again in the morning to give life to the world. Like Jesus had to die, and be reborn to save the world.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sure. Have you got a primary source in which the narrative literaly describes the Sun dying every night and being reborn again in the day to literaly give life to the world?

 

In such a narrative is the Sun literally giving physical life or spiritual life to the world? In the Gospel narrative is Christ is giving physical life to the world in the way the Sun is giving life to the world?

 

Does commonality of theme prove dependence?

 

fwiw

guac.

[Mythra]

Evidently some of the early christian writers were more concerned about the obvious implications of christianity's similarities to paganism:

 

 

The devil whose business is to pervert the truth, mimics the exact circumstances of the Divine Sacraments. He baptizes his believers and promises them forgiveness of sins from the Sacred Fount, and thereby initiates them into the religion of Mithras. Thus he celebrates the oblation of bread, and brings in the symbol of the resurrection. Let us therefore acknowledge the craftiness of the devil, who copies certain things of those that be Divine. Tertullian

 

 

When we say that the Word, who is first the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. Justin Martyr

 

And, a quote from Celsus (Roman Platonist)

 

Are these distinctive happenings unique to the Christians - and if so, how are they unique? Or are ours to be accounted myths and theirs believed? What reasons do the Christians give for the distinctiveness of their beliefs? In truth there is nothing at all unusual about what the Christians believe, except that they believe it to the exclusion of more comprehencise truths about God.

[Mythra]

Sure.  Have you got a primary source in which the narrative literaly describes the Sun dying every night and being reborn again in the day to literaly give life to the world?

fwiw

guac.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Have you got a primary source that tells of a virgin giving birth to the baby Jesus? If so, we'd love to see it. (so would the rest of the world)

[guacamole]

The devil whose business is to pervert the truth, mimics the exact circumstances of the Divine Sacraments. He baptizes his believers and promises them forgiveness of sins from the Sacred Fount, and thereby initiates them into the religion of Mithras. Thus he celebrates the oblation of bread, and brings in the symbol of the resurrection. Let us therefore acknowledge the craftiness of the devil, who copies certain things of those that be Divine. Tertullian

 

Aparently Tertullian thinks the followers of Mithras copied Christians?

 

When we say that the Word, who is first the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. Justin Martyr

 

That Justin Martyr, what a cad. I wonder which of the Sons of Jupiter he thought were conceived without sexual union, eh?

 

What do you think he meants when he says "we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter"? Do you think he means like situation for like situation? Can you rule out that he isn't speaking generally rather than specifically? I suppose the same question can be posed for Celsus as well.

 

Have you got a primary source that tells of a virgin giving birth to the baby Jesus?  If so, we'd love to see it. (so would the rest of the world)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Gospel of Matthew for starters?

 

Come on. It shouldn'e be very hard to find a myth in which the Sun literally dies and is resurrected every day to literally give life to the world.

 

Do you know what a "primary source" is and why "The Jesus Mysteries" isn't one?

 

fwiw

guac.

[Cerise]

That's doesn't make it an agricultural myth, that makes it an oral history-- two separate genres.

 

Are you saying genres can never be combined? Or that genre is a strictly isolated phenomenon? Even I know that genre boundaries are looser then whores.

 

Can you cite me an example of an agricultural myth using primary sources in which the agricultural deity, literally dies and is ressurected in the narrative, in order to "redeem the world"?

 

Sure. Already read the bible didn't you?

[Cerise]

Come on.  It shouldn'e be very hard to find a myth in which the Sun literally dies and is resurrected every day to literally give life to the world.

 

 

You might want to look into some Native American mythology. Regardless, do you know of any cultures that do not have a "sun deity" that battles and is then resurrected?

[guacamole]

Are you saying genres can never be combined?  Or that genre is a strictly isolated phenomenon?  Even I know that genre boundaries are looser then whores.

 

Sure. But not all genres can be seemlessly combined. What's the point of writing a history and what's the point of writing a myth? I presume we differentiate between them because they are different after all.

 

These are important things to be precise about because, as far as I can tell, much of the argumentation on pagan origins of Christian narratives comes from playing fast and loose with definitions and a generous dose of equivocation. I'm more than willing to be convinced otherwise, I just haven't seen it...

 

Consider:

 

Can you cite me an example of an agricultural myth using primary sources in which the agricultural deity, literally dies and is ressurected in the narrative, in order to "redeem the world"?

Sure. Already read the bible didn't you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

See what I mean. One apparently has to stretch the definition of "agricultural deity" to the point that the distinction is meaningless in order to assert that Christ is an agricultural deity. Why bother? If the term "agricultural deity" can be so vapidly meaningless, what point is there in comparing Jesus to agricultural myths? Eventually one can define things so broadly there there isn't merit in the comparison.

 

fwiw

guac.

[guacamole]

You might want to look into some Native American mythology.  Regardless, do you know of any cultures that do not have a "sun deity" that battles and is then resurrected?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm not sure that I do. Was that the Greek version of the Sun? Did the Greek sun god literally die and then be resurrected so that mortals could experience eternal life in fellowship with God?

 

Are you implying that the Christians copied the Native Americans?

 

fwiw

guac.

[Mythra]

If you are looking for a primary source for mithraism, you will find it in the Hindu Vedas, in archaeology, and in

 

Matthew is most certainly not a primary source. It plagiarized and expounded upon the book of Mark. Matthew contains 80% of the verses contained in the book of Mark, which itself is not a primary source. Nor is Luke, it copied from Marcion's gospel.

 

Tertullian was not saying that Mithraism plagiarized Christianity. It was common knowledge in the first century that Mithraism was in existence long before christianity. No one questions this today either. There are Mithraic temples underneath some of the oldest christian churches in Rome. Tertullian is saying that the devil plagiarized christianity ahead of time by anticipating christian practices and incorporating them into pagan practices before christianity was born. Superb reasoning.

[guacamole]

Um, if I'm not mistaken biblegod had many issues with other gods.  Most religons, and one only need historical references or a good encyclopedia, worshipped the Sun. Egyptians worshipped Ra "The Sun God".  My 10 yo old son just told me that Ra, in Egyptian Mythology is the son of Amun Ra the Creator God.  After telling me that he said that it's kind of like God/Jesus.

 

That wasn't hard at all and from a 10 year old at that.  Now whether I spelled right or not is another thing.  However, as with most Egyptian Mythology, not all Egyptians were limited to the same belief, they could worship whatever god/goddess that they desired.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I see. We're going to take a ten -year-old's word for it instead of posting and comparing primary sources. That's what constitutes evidence these days.

 

For the record, a good working definition of a primary source is an original document, not a composition that interprets an original document. The Encyclopedia is not a primary source. In this case, a primary source would be the text of the myth in question. Can anyone post a translation and link of an Egyptian text which details this particular myth?

 

fwiw

guac.

[Mythra]

oops. I never finished my first thought. About primary sources.

 

There are hundreds of mithraic temples with inscriptions and artistic representations. It began around 2,800 BCE in Persia. There is no one (that I am aware of) that questions our knowledge about the rituals and doctrine of this religion. We also know a lot about Mithraism due to christians detractors writing about it in trying to defend the apparent copy cat christian doctrines against it.

[guacamole]

If you are looking for a primary source for mithraism, you will find it in the Hindu Vedas, in archaeology, and in

 

I'm asking for someone to post the primary sources so that we can compare them side by side. I know what Freke, Gandy, Archaya, and others have to say.

 

Matthew is most certainly not a primary source.  It plagiarized and expounded upon the book of Mark.  Matthew contains 80% of the verses contained in the book of Mark, which itself is not a primary source.  Nor is Luke, it copied from Marcion's gospel.

 

So no, you don't know what a primary source is. A primary source is an original manuscripts, contemporary records, and documents or a fundamental, authoritative documents relating to a subject and used in the preparation of later works. I got botha those offa the web. Matthew is most certainly a primary source.

 

Tertullian was not saying that Mithraism plagiarized Christianity.  It was common knowledge in the first century that Mithraism was in existence long before christianity.  No one questions this today either.  There are Mithraic temples underneath some of the oldest christian churches in Rome.  Tertullian is saying that the devil plagiarized christianity ahead of time by anticipating christian practices and incorporating them into pagan practices before christianity was born.  Superb reasoning.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

He's saying the devil plagarized Christianity ahead of time? How do you get that from the text you selected? It's seems you're reading into it a bit. Maybe you had a different selection from Tertullian where he talks about the devil's preemptive plagarism in mind?

 

fwiw

guac.

[Mythra]

And, in Justin Martyr's quote, he is defending the christian doctrine of the virgin birth. He is saying, in essence, "what's the big deal"? You have your myths in which your gods are born of a virgin..

[Mythra]

Please tell us about your "original manuscript" of Matthew. Hopefully the ink is dry.

 

I'm dying to hear about this. You're obviously quite a biblical scholar.