guacamole Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 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.. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think that's what we're debating. Which of Zeus' kids were born of a 'virgin' and not conceived through intercourse, either fantastic or otherwise? Was it the kid's conceived through bull-rape, swan-rape, shower-of-gold-rape, or eating-the-baby-I-conceived-the-normal-way-who-will-spring-full-grown-from-Zeus'-head-virgin-birth. It seems to me that JM is talking about broad types rather than specific instances, things like virgin birth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guacamole Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 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. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Okay, you still don't get it. No wonder you won't post a primary source, I mean apart from the fact that you probably don't have any at hand. * Manuscripts, records, or documents providing original research or documentation. See Secondary Source. www.uakron.edu/library/instruction/glossary.htm * The main source used to defend a research question. www.nmlites.org/standards/language/glossary.html * Fundamental, authoritative documents relating to a subject and used in the preparation of later works. See also secondary source. lib.nmsu.edu/instruction/healthsci/vocab.html * an original diary, letter, or other document written by someone. bama.ua.edu/~alaarch/Glossary/ * A document which describes an event by its witnesses or first recorders. Some types are: diaries, speeches, letters, interviews, newspapers, autobiographies and official records including government publications, legislation, court reports, etc. library.queensu.ca/webisi/survivalguide/glossary.html * Primary Sources include written documents, images and artifacts from the period being studied. Primary sources need not be replicas or facsimiles of the original. For example, the text of the Declaration of Independence is still a primary source when written or typed out on a webs site. www.clrn.org/definitions/ * the writings of an author contemporary with the period under study, or a first hand witness to events, or an original document from the period under study medievalwriting.50megs.com/glossary2.htm * Original manuscripts, records, or documents produced at the time an event occurred. Includes letters, diaries, memoirs, newspapers, personal papers, public documents, field research reports, etc. www.lib.utexas.edu/help/glossary/p.html * This term can be defined in two ways. (1) A document or other sort of evidence written or created during the time under study. Porimary sources offer an inside view of a particular event. Some types include: autobiographies, speeches, official records, and news film footage. (2) In science, an original report of research that has not been condensed or interpreted. Examples include technical reports, research journal articles, and conference proceedings. library.ups.edu/research/guides/libterms.htm * A 'primary source' is any piece of information that is used for constructing history as an artifact of its times. These often include works created by someone who witnessed first-hand or was part of the historical events that are being described, but can also include physical objects like coins, journal entries, letters, or newspaper articles. They can be, however, almost any form of information: advertisements from the 1950s can be primary sources in a work on perceptions of modern technology, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source Matthew is a primary source. You don't need the original, a facsimile will do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guacamole Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 Aparently it's clue time... Wow, you're something else. You use the Bible as "proof", but when anyone else offers up something you want the whole shebang. He's studied encyclopedia's, that have the writings. He's also studying hieroglyphics to learn how to read them. This thread is not about using the Bible as proof. It's about doing a side by side comparison of primary sources. The factual nature of the Bible is irrelevant when we are tyring to ascertain wether or not it's narratives are dependent on pagan narratives. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to take the word of a ten year old, no matter how precocious, when I'm asking for a side by side comparison of primary sources. You see, your bible is a myth that I don't accept for fact. For the record, I'm teaching my children, NOT to take anyone's word for it which is why he is studying. We also have books on Sumer and Babylon, India and Ancient China. Just by simply reading, he has noticed the similiarities in ALL religions including Judaism and Christianity. He will not have that "childlike" faith that Christianity requires. We don't just use "one" resource, we use many. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bully for you. Are you going to whip out a primary source so that we can validate or invalidate the hypothesis that Christian narrative draws from pagan narrative? Put up or shut up. fwiw guac. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skankboy Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 Matthew is a primary source. You don't need the original, a facsimile will do. I don't believe he's contesting that the book of "matthew" is invalid because we don't have a piece of linen with it written on it. He's contesting it because many don't consider ANY of the authors of the new testament to have been "First-hand witnesses" to the events they describe. Much of the information is attributed to an earlier "Q" document. As such, I believe "Q" would be considered the primary source, not the gospels. At least, that's what I think they're trying to say... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 Are you sure you're not confusing metaphors and object lessons with mythic narratives? I thought mythic narratives contained metaphors and object lessons, so what's your point? Wasn't most myths made to explain the phenomena or give a reason to what and why things where happening? 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? You mean if I have a history book about mythology explaining this, or are you asking for a specific document? The Ultimate Encyclopedia of Mythology, Artur Cotterell & Rachel Storm pg 310-311: The Egyptians believed that each day the sun god was born. In the morning, after his bath and breakfast, he began his journey across the sky in his boat and would spend one of the hours of the day inspecting each of his 12 provinces. When then sun went down, Ra was believed to enter the underworld until the morning, when he was born again. All night long, the supreme god had to fight his enemy Apep, the terrible cosmic serpent of the underworld. Notice the fighting with the Serpent, basically the Devil. And for you question if they believed that it was the sun itself that died or if it was the god illustrated as a sun? I must say that if you question their beliefs to be honest or not, I think you have to start questioning your own beliefs too. Is the story of Jesus’ death and resurrection a true historical event, or is it just a mythical story to illustrate the rebirth of the Sun God himself? In such a narrative is the Sun literally giving physical life or spiritual life to the world? The book I mentioned above is one out of many, and they didn’t pull these ideas out of a hat, they’ve been based on historical research and archeology. For me to point to one or a couple of documents that is the foundation for these ideas, it will take way too much of my time. You should do some research yourself on this subject. In the Gospel narrative is Christ is giving physical life to the world in the way the Sun is giving life to the world? Don’t you believe Jesus by his death and resurrection gave eternal life to those who believe? Wasn’t that the purpose? Does commonality of theme prove dependence? fwiw guac. The death/rebirth concept is not something small and uncommon; every religion is flooded with the metaphors of rebirth. And it bids to think that the rebirth theology you have in Christianity is nothing but an extension of the same concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 Gospel of Matthew for starters? Do you know who wrote Gospel of Matthew? Is that a reliable history book, since it’s written by a follower of the religion? Isn't it funny that if you read hieroglyphs, and study old Egypt religion, that you considered it only to be mythology. But when you read a book written by an anonymous writer, and many years after the event, you claim it must be historical. No one claims the old Egypt religion to be actual stories of gods that actually and literally did so and such. No one believes that. And we treat the Bible the same way as you treat the Hieroglyphs. The Bible is a religious document, not a historical document. Think about this for a second. There are not secondary and secular sources to tell us that Ra actually existed 3000 years ago, therefore we don’t believe Ra ever existed. But we do know from the writings that the Religion existed. There are no trustworthy secondary and secular sources to support the claim that Jesus existed and did all the miracles either. So he has to be treated the same way! He’s just a mythical figure to give the religion a foundation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 Do you know what a "primary source" is and why "The Jesus Mysteries" isn't one? fwiw guac. Do you know what a "primary source" is and why "the Gospel according to Matthew" isn't one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 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. Are you googley challanged? This link will give access to the text.The Pyramid Texts were funerary inscriptions that were written on the walls of the early Ancient Egyptian pyramids at Sakkara. These date back to the fifth and sixth dynasties, approximately the years 2350-2175 B.C.E. However, because of extensive internal evidence, it is believed that they were composed much earlier, circa 3000 B.C.E. The Pyramid Texts are, therefore, essentially the oldest sacred texts known.Samuel Mercer was the first to produce a complete English translation of this mysterious text, in 1952. This was also the first complete translation in any language. The Mercer translation was followed by the R.O. Faulkner translation in 1969, which is considered the standard today. However, this does not diminish the usefulness of Mercer's version, particularly because it has fallen into the public domain and is now available freely online here at sacred-texts, the first complete version of the Pyramid Texts on the Interent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 Okay, you still don't get it. No wonder you won't post a primary source, I mean apart from the fact that you probably don't have any at hand. You can download the Book of the Dead here: http://www.blackmask.com/acrobook/bookdead.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lokmer Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 I think that's what we're debating. Which of Zeus' kids were born of a 'virgin' and not conceived through intercourse, either fantastic or otherwise? Was it the kid's conceived through bull-rape, swan-rape, shower-of-gold-rape, or eating-the-baby-I-conceived-the-normal-way-who-will-spring-full-grown-from-Zeus'-head-virgin-birth. Referring to the "swan-rape" and the "shower-of-gold-rape" and other such conceptions is committing an illegitimate category error. Particularly in the shower-of-gold sense, or in the case of Isis becoming pregnant by eating the penis of her dead brother. These births occered without physical sexual intercourse - the whole point of the fantastic conception stories is to ensure the divine nature of the progeny, just as the Holy Spirit came upon Mary against her knownledge and without her consent (until after the fact). If your categories consider a shower of gold as a "rape," you cannot artificially seperate your own miraculous conception from the pile. For primary sources, see Marytr's first and second apologies (I forget the section at the moment, but it should be easily searchable by the phrase "sons of Zeus" or "sons of Jupiter"), The Baccahe by Euripides, The Golden Ass by Apuleius. For a comprehensive survey on primary sources, including direct citations and the current scholarly opinon on each of the "dying and rising gods" see this book. If you go looking for one dude who Jesus is a cabon copy of, you'll be sorely disappointed. But, between OT scriptures, Sophist and Platonic philosophers, Gnostics, Alexandrian Jews, Greek Myths, popular novels of the day, and Canaanite/Babylonian myths, you will be hard pressed to find a single utterance, miracle, story arc, or event in Jesus life that is not borrowed (and, in at least one instance, directly plagerized) from ideas, philosophies, and stories that were demonstrably in the air at the time in Asia Minor and throughout the empire (and even in Judea and Galilee, although none of the books of the NT were written either by Gallileans or Judeans, or in Galillee or Judea, except perhaps the book of James). -Lokmer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted June 28, 2005 Author Share Posted June 28, 2005 guaca dude doesn't want to talk about his primary source. So I will. The oldest existing copies of the bible are codex vaticanus and codex sinaiticus. Both are FOURTH century manuscripts. I mean, take a look at the Rylands Papyri sometime. It's dated to about 125 CE. It's a tiny scrap of parchment with about 10 words on it. These are christians primary, solid gold, locked up sources. Justin Martyr never mentioned the gospels by name - he knew neither Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. And this was in 150 CE. Over one hundred years after Jesus supposedly died. But that's o.k. , because you can trust the honest folks at Roman Church r us to make sure that not one word got changed in that first 300 years. And, if you believe that, I got Jesus' foreskin I'd like to sell ya. Maybe I'll get a paper and pencil out and copy down the declaration of independence, so we can have a primary source of that, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guacamole Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Wow. I speechless. You guys have had something like 16 friggin' hours to find the text of a myth, a primary source, and post it so we can disect it and determine whether or not the gospels narratives and doctrines of Christianity borrow from it. And how many myth tests were posted as evidence of the hypothesis that Christain narratives and doctrine borrowed from Pagan narratives and doctrines:. 0 zip zilch none null nein goose luv the posted myth texts are an empty set You can download the Book of the Dead here: http://www.blackmask.com/acrobook/bookdead.pdf Are you googley challanged? Look' date=' I'm not the one making the postive assertion that Christians borrowed from pagans so I shouldn't be the one who has to do the work. I mean, I could do the work, but I'm just gonna cherry pick the easy stuff about Mithra... If you think there is a myth worth comparing from the BotD, Pyramid Texts, Theogony, Works and Days, or any epic, play, history composed [b']before[/b] the rise of Christianity, or the Eternal Extant Scriptures of the Cult of Mithra, by all means, post the text of the myth in this thread and lets slug it out So far we're on page four and no texts have been posted. I mean, the grab-ass if fun to watch, but lets try and accomplish something.... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't believe he's contesting that the book of "matthew" is invalid because we don't have a piece of linen with it written on it. He's contesting it because many don't consider ANY of the authors of the new testament to have been "First-hand witnesses" to the events they describe. Much of the information is attributed to an earlier "Q" document. As such' date=' I believe "Q" would be considered the primary source, not the gospels. At least, that's what I think they're trying to say... Wendyshrug.gif [/quote'] Do you know who wrote Gospel of Matthew? Is that a reliable history book' date=' since it’s written by a follower of the religion? Isn't it funny that if you read hieroglyphs, and study old Egypt religion, that you considered it only to be mythology. But when you read a book written by an anonymous writer, and many years after the event, you claim it must be historical. No one claims the old Egypt religion to be actual stories of gods that actually and literally did so and such. No one believes that. And we treat the Bible the same way as you treat the Hieroglyphs. The Bible is a religious document, not a historical document. Think about this for a second. There are not secondary and secular sources to tell us that Ra actually existed 3000 years ago, therefore we don’t believe Ra ever existed. But we do know from the writings that the Religion existed. There are no trustworthy secondary and secular sources to support the claim that Jesus existed and did all the miracles either. So he has to be treated the same way! He’s just a mythical figure to give the religion a foundation.[/quote'] Do you know what a "primary source" is and why "the Gospel according to Matthew" isn't one? guaca dude doesn't want to talk about his primary source. So I will. The oldest existing copies of the bible are codex vaticanus and codex sinaiticus. Both are FOURTH century manuscripts. I mean' date=' take a look at the Rylands Papyri sometime. It's dated to about 125 CE. It's a tiny scrap of parchment with about 10 words on it. These are christians primary, solid gold, locked up sources. Justin Martyr never mentioned the gospels by name - he knew neither Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. And this was in 150 CE. Over one hundred years after Jesus supposedly died. But that's o.k. , because you can trust the honest folks at Roman Church r us to make sure that not one word got changed in that first 300 years. And, if you believe that, I got Jesus' foreskin I'd like to sell ya. Maybe I'll get a paper and pencil out and copy down the declaration of independence, so we can have a primary source of that, too.[/quote'] So the Gospel of Matthew as a bona fide document of the Christian Faith is not a primary source but the imaginary document "Q" which doesn't exist is... ...holy crap, people... For the purposes of this discussion, in which we attempt to ascertain whether or not the Gospel narratives and Christian doctrine borrowed from Pagan sources, it's irrelevant whether or not Matthew was an eye witness or not. In fact, his NOT being an eyewitness is part and parcel of the point that the Gospel writer's DID borrow. In a sense, were trying to figure out if it is reasonable to even consider wether or not Matthew could have been an eyewitness. I tell you what, you guys don't worry about Matthew being an eye witness and I won't worry about the anonymous composers of myths being eye witnesses either. The reason being is.... get ready to rave.... here it comes knave... pay attention, behave... (Burma Shave) IT DOESN'T MATTER! Neither writer needs to be an eye witness if all we're trying to do is figure out if writer B borrowed from writer A. But we do need the 'primary sources', the writings of writer A and writer B, in order to do the comparison. Encyclopedias, books on Jesus conspiracies, collects of myths written at the pre-teen level, papers written by discredited "anthropologists" with "secret sources lost in the mists of time" do not constitute 'primary sources'. Does everyone get it? Signify that you don't understand by grunting savagly in an ape like manner at the screen and chucking feces at the keepers. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Put up or shut up. fwiw guac. My' date=' my, how very christlike of you. FrogsToadBigGrin.gif Sign me up to rejoin Christianity again! [/quote'] I see you still have not put up. Why am I not surprised. I'll ask again: Post the translation of a myth so that we can compare them side by side and see what borrowing there was... I don't have any "primary" resources so I guess I'm disqualified from joining the thread. Does anyone have "truly" primary resources though? Other than the early "church" fathers we have nothing from the people who lived around the supposedly time of Christ to assure us of the bible's validity. At least the other religions' date=' like Mythra pointed out left symbols and drawings, etc. quite older than Christianity.[/quote'] Can you read? I know you'd rather argue about the definition of a primary source than post evidence you don't have for a theory you accept on blind faith (after all, you certainly haven't scruitinized the evidence... how skeptical of you...). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I thought mythic narratives contained metaphors and object lessons' date=' so what's your point? Wasn't most myths made to explain the phenomena or give a reason to what and why things where happening? [/quote'] First and foremost a myth is a narrative. It works out well to compare pagan myths and Christian myths because they are both narratives. However, if you want to compare mythic narrative with the object lesson of Jesus (mustard seed, etc.), then it doesn't work. Jesus wasn't composing a mythic narrative in his object lessons drawn from the natural world. When Jesus or one of the Apostles use an agricultural metaphor to explain a spiritual truth, they aren't trying to explain why the sun sets and rises and why leaves fall offa trees in Autumn. In addition, the object lessons aren't narrative- they are expository text within the narrative. Somce an object lesson isn't a mythic narrative so inevitably, any comparison is going to be highly subjective. That's not evidence. It will be much much harder to prove that the writers borrowed from pagan sources for their object lessons than it will be to prove borrowing for the actual narrative. I'm trying to save you the trouble. You mean if I have a history book about mythology explaining this' date=' or are you asking for a specific document?[/quote'] That actual text of the myth in question. The quote you provide from the Encyclopedia is not the text of the myth in question. Why am I am the only person being skeptical enough not to want to take another interpreters word for it? And for you question if they believed that it was the sun itself that died or if it was the god illustrated as a sun? I must say that if you question their beliefs to be honest or not' date=' I think you have to start questioning your own beliefs too. Is the story of Jesus’ death and resurrection a true historical event, or is it just a mythical story to illustrate the rebirth of the Sun God himself?[/quote'] I'm not questioning whether it is TRUE or not or whether they BELIEVED it or not. I'm asking how they UNDERSTOOD the story. You can tell from the Socratic Dialogues and Plato that there were Greeks who did not accept the literal truth of the stories. That's what I was driving at. How is the story understood by the aboriginal hearer. Did the ancient Pagan see the sun as a "savior", did he need it for "redemption", did he think, with his prescientific pov, that the Sun gave life, or did it give just light. I'm trying to winnow out the 21st century editorialization that gets inflected to these myths. The book I mentioned above is one out of many' date=' and they didn’t pull these ideas out of a hat, they’ve been based on historical research and archeology. For me to point to one or a couple of documents that is the foundation for these ideas, it will take way too much of my time. You should do some research yourself on this subject.[/quote'] If you're not gonna bother supporting your beliefs then why even post in the thread? I don't care if you uncritically accept the writings of interpreters. I don't need to accept their words or yours as evidence. I'd be a moron if I did. In the Gospel narrative is Christ is giving physical life to the world in the way the Sun is giving life to the world? Don’t you believe Jesus by his death and resurrection gave eternal life to those who believe? Wasn’t that the purpose? Thanks for dodging the question. Does Christ give physical life to the world in the way the Sun gives life to the world? Does the Sun provide eternal life for the believer in the way Christ supposedly does? Does commonality of theme prove dependence?The death/rebirth concept is not something small and uncommon; every religion is flooded with the metaphors of rebirth. And it bids to think that the rebirth theology you have in Christianity is nothing but an extension of the same concept. IOW' date=' no, commonality of theme doesn't prove dependence. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Referring to the "swan-rape" and the "shower-of-gold-rape" and other such conceptions is committing an illegitimate category error. Particularly in the shower-of-gold sense' date=' or in the case of Isis becoming pregnant by eating the penis of her dead brother. These births occered without physical sexual intercourse - the whole point of the fantastic conception stories is to ensure the divine nature of the progeny, just as the Holy Spirit came upon Mary against her knownledge and without her consent (until after the fact). If your categories consider a shower of gold as a "rape," you cannot artificially seperate your own miraculous conception from the pile.[/quote'] Well, in truth I don't wanna discuss wether or not Leto and the other victims of the Divine serial rapist had a choice or not. I was being flippant on purpose. And I still am. Why don't you post the texts of the myths in questions? For primary sources' date=' see Marytr's first and second apologies (I forget the section at the moment, but it should be easily searchable by the phrase "sons of Zeus" or "sons of Jupiter"), The Baccahe by Euripides, The Golden Ass by Apuleius. For a comprehensive survey on primary sources, including direct citations and the current scholarly opinon on each of the "dying and rising gods" see this book. [/quote'] It's interesting that you bring up Justin Martyr. He wrote no earlier than C.E. 100, the year he was born. Anything that depends on JM as a primary source is suspect because you have a writer, already well into the Christian era, writing about things that depend on him for mention. It very well could be that the Pagan heroes copied Christians if you have to rely on the likes of JM for your evidence. On the other hand, you could post the texts of the myths in question. If you go looking for one dude who Jesus is a cabon copy of' date=' you'll be sorely disappointed. But, between OT scriptures, Sophist and Platonic philosophers, Gnostics, Alexandrian Jews, Greek Myths, popular novels of the day, and Canaanite/Babylonian myths, you will be hard pressed to find a single utterance, miracle, story arc, or event in Jesus life that is not borrowed (and, in at least one instance, directly plagerized) from ideas, philosophies, and stories that were demonstrably in the air at the time in Asia Minor and throughout the empire (and even in Judea and Galilee, although none of the books of the NT were written either by Gallileans or Judeans, or in Galillee or Judea, except perhaps the book of James). -Lokmer[/quote'] I feel like a skeptical sunday school kid in this thread. Everyone is telling me everything they say and believe is true but no one is posting any direct evidence. Is it really that hard? fwiw guac. edit... but I can't seem to get the tags to work... someone let me know what I'm doing wrong... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 I see you still have not put up. Why am I not surprised. I'll ask again: Post the translation of a myth so that we can compare them side by side and see what borrowing there was... You mean you can't read something unless it is posted on this site? If you are going to be a sarcastic bastard at least be sarcastic about something substantial. No point in wasting space on Dave's dime for something you are not going to read anyway. PS. It occurs to me that if you are the primary source scholar you imply that you are, you would have already read these texts for your self and made the necessary side by side comparisons that you require in order to claim Matthew as a more primary or at least more reliable source. Apparently you find Matthew to be more primary by faith? That is something straight from the mouth of God? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Does everyone get it? No. You seem to be left out of the set of people that "get it". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 edit... but I can't seem to get the tags to work... someone let me know what I'm doing wrong... I think you can only use 10 quotes per post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted June 29, 2005 Author Share Posted June 29, 2005 Wow. I speechless. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, you're clueless. We're in complete agreement. There is no primary literary source for Mithraism. Or for christianity. Tell you what. Next time I run into my Mithraic High Priest buddy, I'll ask him what the name of his bible is. Keep up that air of superiority though, guaca. It suits you well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guacamole Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 I see you still have not put up. Why am I not surprised. I'll ask again: Post the translation of a myth so that we can compare them side by side and see what borrowing there was... You mean you can't read something unless it is posted on this site? No. I'm not making the positive assertion. I'm not doing the work. If you think that the Bible steals from pagan sources, whip out the hetetofore unseen impresively prodigious evidence. If you are going to be a sarcastic bastard at least be sarcastic about something substantial. Geez, to think that I thought that comparing evidence for ourselves and coming to our own conclusion was something substantial. I thought that there were critical thinkers on this board. No point in wasting space on Dave's dime for something you are not going to read anyway. There ya go. You've settled it. You're not gonna post the evidence you don't have to give me something I'm not gonna read. Why bother even posting in this thread? PS. It occurs to me that if you are the primary source scholar you imply that you are, you would have already read these texts for your self and made the necessary side by side comparisons that you require in order to claim Matthew as a more primary or at least more reliable source. Apparently you find Matthew to be more primary by faith? That is something straight from the mouth of God? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This isn't about whose text is more magical, more special, more sexy, more inspired, more artistic, more exciting, more primal, or anything like that. Neither writer needs to be an eye witness if all we're trying to do is figure out if writer B borrowed from writer A. But we do need the 'primary sources', the writings of writer A and writer B, in order to do the comparison. Encyclopedias, books on Jesus conspiracies, collects of myths written at the pre-teen level, papers written by discredited "anthropologists" with "secret sources lost in the mists of time" do not constitute 'primary sources'. I'm not saying M is more primary. I'm wanting to examine the evidence that people have who are making a rather exceptional claim. You know... the whole ecree bit? Exception claims require exceptional evidence? fwiw guac. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guacamole Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 No, you're clueless. We're in complete agreement. There is no primary literary source for Mithraism. Or for christianity. Holy-friggin'-bi-sexual-lizard-men-of-the-north-pole... you got that half right. Okay, lets stop trying to choke down the concept of "primary source". Have you got a translation of a mythic text that isn't a contemporary redaction or revision, which we can compare to the Christian texts or doctrines in question? Tell you what. Next time I run into my Mithraic High Priest buddy, I'll ask him what the name of his bible is. Keep up that air of superiority though, guaca. It suits you well. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thanks. Keep not posting the evidence. It suits you well. fwiw guac. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted June 29, 2005 Author Share Posted June 29, 2005 Original primal source that was not doctored by 300 years of "holy" improvements "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". Inscription to Mythras preserved in the Vatican. Prove it false or admit christianity plagiarized it in inventing the eucharist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Oh yes. The alleged Jesus' teachings were quite explosive and revolutionary. For the Jews, that is. Day old stuff, simple plagiarism to the Greeks. Love your enemies, do good to those who persecute you: Socrates 469-399 BCE Do to others as you'd like done to you: Plato 427-347 BCE Both just a little before the supposed lifetime of the supposed Christ. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> .... or perhaps a little more of the 'RECONCILIATION' that Jesus urges us to seek and reveal? Maybe there are many pieces to the puzzle and if we put them all together, reconciled, we could then see the big picture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Don’t you believe Jesus by his death and resurrection gave eternal life to those who believe? Wasn’t that the purpose? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> HanSolo, I don't think that was the purpose.... then why the rest of the book? Perhaps it was his principles and ideas that were nourishing his spirituality which he stood by all the way through the worst physical death, to demonstrate how we can overcome the condemnation of the world and gives a life that can not be overcome by the world. Wouldn't that make the principles and ideas the purpose? BTW... just to share... Zoe Grace made a very good point the other day in a post to me on another thread, and has had me consider the label 'Christian'. Because of what I think the label means, and what the label has come to popularly communicate, are not the same thing... that I should consider changing my label... and after consideration, I agree. Maybe (Jesus) Christ follower instead... so whatever the consideration and concessions are worth.... in order to more accurately communicate and represent myself... I still claim an allegiance to the early Christians, yet it seems that their present popular stands aren't what they use to be. Sad, but seems true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Hey, I just want to say that what I just posted has nothing to do with what Guacomole and the rest of you are discussing. Just coincidence that my post showed up here as I was catching up on the thread and entered my views as I went along. My gosh you guys.... sparks, sparks, everywhere sparks... Does someone have to win? at all cost? AHHHHHH, apologies ....I forget sometimes that you guys like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted June 29, 2005 Author Share Posted June 29, 2005 That's okay, Amanda. That's the nature of these forums. You jump in whenever you can. It's cool. I think we're at an impass anyway, since I don't have any ancient texts in my back pocket, and I'm kinda new to this.. I'm waiting for the A team to show up and lend a hand. I'm trying to be nice to guaca dude, having turned over a new leaf and all. It's hard, especially after the comment about the zoo animals and feces. But, he's just kind of showing what true christian charity is all about. And, you are right, Amanda. Follower of Christ would be a lot better title for yourself. You don't want to be grouped with some of these folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lokmer Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 You can tell from the Socratic Dialogues and Plato that there were Greeks who did not accept the literal truth of the stories. That's what I was driving at. How is the story understood by the aboriginal hearer. Did the ancient Pagan see the sun as a "savior", did he need it for "redemption", did he think, with his prescientific pov, that the Sun gave life, or did it give just light. I hardly see how this is relavent. Throughout history there have been those who see religion and myth as metaphor, and those who take it literally. With rare exception, the distinction between these groups breaks down precisely along lines of wealth and education. I'm trying to winnow out the 21st century editorialization that gets inflected to these myths. A noble aim. Do look at your own. It seems that you are trying to read your own favorite myths through the lens of 19th-Century literalism rather than in accordance with the genres they were written in (which are, at the least, mythologized history if not wholesale mythology and legend). Does Christ give physical life to the world in the way the Sun gives life to the world? Does the Sun provide eternal life for the believer in the way Christ supposedly does? Again, a meaningless distinction. You're trying to draw a hard line between a metaphorical and literal doctrine, refusing to wrestle with the obvious - that the metaphor grows out of the literal, and takes on a life of its own. This happens with sun gods throughout history. Well, in truth I don't wanna discuss wether or not Leto and the other victims of the Divine serial rapist had a choice or not. I was being flippant on purpose. And I still am. Being flippant on purpose over a subject you want to discuss seriously? Tsk, tsk. It's a bit incongruous, don't you think, to be demanding gravity from your opponents while indulging in flippancy masquerading as rehtoric. Why don't you post the texts of the myths in questions? Because you have not proved yourself worthy of the time it would take to transcribe two or three variants of each myth in question from the books in my library. I feel like a skeptical sunday school kid in this thread. Everyone is telling me everything they say and believe is true but no one is posting any direct evidence. I've posted an extensive reading list for you. Most of the works germaine to the subject are not available online, and it would be a violation of copyright to post more than brief excerpt (even of some of the primary sources, as the more recent and reliable translations are covered under copyright). My reading list includes primary sources as well as scholarly linguistic and historical analysis of the sources. Hardly vacuous. And Martyr wrote early enough that his testimony about the surrounding culture does count as a primary source. He wrote in the 130s-150s IIRC, far before Christianity became either culturally dominant or terribly widespread. He was one of the first apologists precisely *because* he's writing at the very time when Christianity is getting popular enough to be culturally reckonable. Arguing that "all the pagan myths before Martyr could've borrowed from Christianity" is not just silly, it betrays a thorough lack of understanding of the information dispersal rates and patterns in a culture that had no printing press or popular media. Ideas took a long time to disseminate across the empire, and more time still to become inculcated in the popular consciousness and culture. Matthew is not a primary source by any stretch - at the very least he copied from and expanded on and mythologized Mark. If you're looking for a primary source for the Christian story (in writing) you have one place to look: Mark. And there is excellent reason to suspect, other than its absence from canonical lists until Irenaeus, that Mark was not even intended as history. Mark is, at least in structure, is an exercise in literary mimesis on Homer's "The Oddyssey", a genere popular at the time that is the Greek equivalent of the Jewish "midrash" (arguments can be made that this is simply a genre thing rather than something impacting its reliablity, but it does bring into serious question the purpose Mark had in writing the book, and whether that purpose was historical of hagiographical). For a thorough exploration of the textual, historical, linguistic, and literary matters see The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark. If you're interested in the topic, you should be doing due dilligance. You should also learn greek, at the very least. The stuff you find online is a good starting place, but it is incomplete, and much of it is out of date (including the translations). Sitting there and petulantly demanding you be spoon-fed with ready-made links and transcriptions is highly egocentric and more than a little ridiculous. I am perfectly willing to spend my time in fruitful (or even interesting) discussion. I am not, however, your secretary. -Lokmer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerise Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Have you got a translation of a mythic text that isn't a contemporary redaction or revision, which we can compare to the Christian texts or doctrines in question? Do you mean to suggest that Christian texts are not contemporary redactions or revisions? And do you mean texts such as Herodotus and Strabo's or Ovid's writings? Or something like the tablets that held the myth of Gilgamesh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts