The Pagan Gospel

[Mythra]

Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?  It is hard for you to kick against the goads.  [pros kentra laktizoimi]  Acts

The phrase "kick against the goads" isn't an inherently religious phrase by any stretch of the imagination.  It contains no reference to any divine figures or cultic actions.  It is quite probable that, precisely because of Euripides, the phrase was common parlance in Greek.

fwiw

guaca.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Being blinded by the light the way you are, you'll be unable to see any borrowing from any other sources. And, you will have no problem stumping me, since I've been looking into this stuff for a total of three months.

 

I'm sure when the shoe is on the other foot, it is blatantly obvious to you. For instance, are you able to discern the obvious usage of the King James language in Joseph Smith's plagiarism called the Book of Mormon? Surely your god-colored glasses don't prevent you from recognizing this.

 

But in this instance I've quoted, your argument is "ARSE", old boy.

 

In the first place, "kick against the goads", was not a common phrase in greek. But, IF IT WAS: Why would the risen christ choose to use a "common greek phrase" in his revelation in converting Saul? Maybe the risen Jesus was just trying to fit in with the popular culture of the times.

 

If you are looking for a word-by-word exact textual plagiarism into the bible, it will never happen. (or there will be limited proof, that can be rationalized away) - as you are pretty good at doing. Neither me nor anyone else could produce such a thing as irrefutable texts that are cut-and-pasted into the bible.

 

Doesn't mean that the ideas and religious motifs and philosophies weren't present and inundating the minds of the gospel writers. The influence is obvious to anyone who's bias doesn't prevent them from seeing it.

[Mythra]

This whole learning of other cultural myths came after my deconversion, not prior to though.

Edited to change "religion" to "relatives"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Me, too, thankful. Had no clue about any of this when I was christian.

 

No normal christian does. I'm pretty sure that guaca's avatar is actually him. He is really an alien or .. what is that thing. chupacabra from central america?

 

Another primary source for those of you not wearing god-colored glasses:

 

From Plato's Republic: in his discourse with Glaucon 350 BCE: (speaking of just and unjust men)

 

They will tell you that the just man who is thought unjust will be scourged, racked, bound -- will have his eyes burnt out; and at last, after suffering every kind of evil, he will be impaled: Then he will understand that he ought to seem only, and not to be, just; the words of Aeschylus may be more truly spoken of the unjust than the just. For the unjust is pursuing a reality; he does not live with a view to appearances -- he wants to be really unjust and not to seem only.

 

His mind has a soil deep and fertile. Out of which spring his prudent counsels.

[Heimdall]

Guacamole, I asked for NT texts of a greater age than 4th century (the only two surviving codex are of that period) and you give me fragments. Your pride and joy is dated 125 CE and contains portions of what might be the Gospel of John or could be portions of the “Signs Gospel” that has been predicated as the document that John took much of his material from. For that matter it is entirely possible that it is THE autograph! Then again, it might be something much more mundane, there is very little on that fragment, part of verses 31-33 (maybe could be something else) on one side and parts of verses 37-38 (or once again could be something else) on the other. In order to really do justice on comments of the early church fathers defending so called key points of doctrine, we first must establish when Jesus was born, when he ministered, and when he died. I must ask you to give me a date that meets all the following scriptural and historical data:

 

Herod the Great – reigned from 40 to 4 BCE

Augustus – reigned 24 BCE to 14 CE

Quirinius (known as Cyrenius in Luke) – served as Governor of Syria from 6 – 9 CE (and did conduct a census at the command of Augustus)

John the Baptist’s ministry – 28 CE to 31 or 32 CE (began in the 15th year of Tiberius)

Pontius Pilate – served as Perfect from 26 to 36 CE

Tiberius – reigned from 14 to 37 CE

Mark says the birth took place during the reign of King Herod (Herod the Great)

Luke says the birth took place during the census ordered by Augustus when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria. To further complicate things, Irenaeus, sometime after mid 2nd century made the comment that Jesus was still alive in the reign of Trajan (98-117 CE) and Epiphanius writing in the 4th century CE said that Jesus was born before Herod the Great (73 – 4 BCE).

Once we know when Jesus was born, taught and died, we will know how long the “early church fathers”, you speak of. had to develop or borrow that “advanced” doctrine. For that matter, even if we accepted the current chronology of born 1 CE, died 32-33 CE, the doctrine would have been formulating or borrowing for over a century when Justin Martyr was defending virgin birth, etc.

Thanks for quoting Catullus’ “Attis” and my references from Stratius and Ovid. By doing show you show most of the elements of the cult were already in place prior to 1st century CE. This shows that dying/resurrecting gods were common in ancient times and that to be anyone in the religion game, your god had to resurrect, a fact early Christ Cultists were well aware of and seem to have “borrowed”! I will give you some more information on Attis, Adonis, etc later. It has taken me most of the day (Fridays’ are quite busy here and I am going out on a field survey this weekend) to write this much - Heimdall

[Lokmer]

I'm curious about the word choice here, since the greeks would have been the strong influence on the Romans, not the Jews.  Secondly, like Attis, there are a lot of citations in a lot of the samge places for Romulus.

 

Your grammar here is ambiguous - are you arguing that the Greeks were not an influence on the Jews?

 

-Lokmer

[guacamole]

Being blinded by the light the way you are, you'll be unable to see any borrowing from any other sources.  And, you will have no problem stumping me, since I've been looking into this stuff for a total of three months. 

 

That's probably correct, not because of any inexperience on your part, but due to a genuine reluctance on both sides; we're operating from different points of assumption.

 

I'm sure when the shoe is on the other foot, it is blatantly obvious to you.  For instance, are you able to discern the obvious usage of the King James language in Joseph Smith's plagiarism called the Book of Mormon?  Surely your god-colored glasses don't prevent you from recognizing this.

 

Use of idiom and language doesn't constitute borrowing. I am sure that if you spend any time at all discussing Mormonism with orthodox Christians, you will note that the problem with Mormonism is how "novel" it is as a body of doctrine. If it were more like Christianity there would be less of a problem between people claiming to be Christians.

 

But in this instance I've quoted, your argument is "ARSE", old boy.

 

 

In the first place, "kick against the goads", was not a common phrase in greek.  But,  IF IT WAS:  Why would the risen christ choose to use a "common greek phrase" in his revelation in converting Saul?  Maybe the risen Jesus was just trying to fit in with the popular culture of the times.

 

How do you know that "kick against the goads" was not a common idiom. For one thing it appears in at least 2 ancient sources.

 

The Christ chose to be incarnate, teach in aramaic, and experience other human limitations and habits. Why couldn't he use a "common greek phrase"?

 

If you are looking for a word-by-word exact textual plagiarism into the bible, it will never happen. (or there will be limited proof, that can be rationalized away) - as you are pretty good at doing.  Neither me nor anyone else could produce such a thing as irrefutable texts that are cut-and-pasted into the bible. 

 

Of course. The best I can do is make sure that you and anyone else have actually read the primary texts for yourself. That's been my goal all along.

 

Doesn't mean that the ideas and religious motifs and philosophies weren't present and inundating the minds of the gospel writers.  The influence is obvious to anyone who's bias doesn't prevent them from seeing it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Or, the lack of influence is obvious to anyone who's bias doesn't prevent them from seeing it? I can play that game too...

 

fwiw

guaca.

[guacamole]

Guacamole, I asked for NT texts of a greater age than 4th century (the only two surviving codex are of that period) and you give me fragments.  Your pride and joy is dated 125 CE and contains portions of what might be the Gospel of John or could be portions of the “Signs Gospel” that has been predicated as the document that John took much of his material from.  For that matter it is entirely possible that it is THE autograph!  Then again, it might be something much more mundane, there is very little on that fragment, part of verses 31-33 (maybe could be something else) on one side and parts of verses 37-38 (or once again could be something else) on the other.  In order to really do justice on comments of the early church fathers defending so called key points of doctrine, we first must establish when Jesus was born, when he ministered, and when he died.  I must ask you to give me a date that meets all the following scriptural and historical data:

 

I see you skeptics like to reference non-existent documents despite your fixation on evidence. The only text we have that matches P52 is John's Gospel. Period. If you can't find a text of the "Signs Gospel" then either apologize for thinking I'm dumb enough to accept your obvious bullshit, or admit that you don't care a whit about evidence and proof. Either way you are bordering awful close on being stupidly fraudulent; you're argument hinges on a late composition date for the Gospels. You know this because if the composition date is early then the imaginary evidence you have for the pagan cults can't be evidence of borrowing. It's weak and you know it's weak.

 

Thanks for quoting Catullus’ “Attis” and my references from Stratius and Ovid.  By doing show you show most of the elements of the cult were already in place prior to 1st century CE.  This shows that dying/resurrecting gods were common in ancient times and that to be anyone in the religion game, your god had to resurrect, a fact early Christ Cultists were well aware of and seem to have “borrowed”!  I will give you some more information on Attis, Adonis, etc later.  It has taken me most of the day (Fridays’ are quite busy here and I am going out on a field survey this weekend) to write this much - Heimdall 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Did you even read the texts? Obviously not. I wouldn't have been dumb enough to prove your point through my citations. Prove your points about dying and ressurecting gods from the citations I gave about Attis, especially the one from the histories.

[guacamole]

I'm curious about the word choice here, since the greeks would have been the strong influence on the Romans, not the Jews.  Secondly, like Attis, there are a lot of citations in a lot of the samge places for Romulus.

 

Your grammar here is ambiguous - are you arguing that the Greeks were not an influence on the Jews?

 

-Lokmer

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

My apologies, I was definitely unclear. I meant that the choice of "Sin" in the translation was odd because the Greeks would have been a bigger influence on the Romans than the Jews would have been on the Romans.

 

I hope that clears it up.

[Heimdall]

I see you skeptics like to reference non-existent documents despite your fixation on evidence. The only text we have that matches P52 is John's Gospel. Period. If you can't find a text of the "Signs Gospel" then either apologize for thinking I'm dumb enough to accept your obvious bullshit, or admit that you don't care a whit about evidence and proof. Either way you are bordering awful close on being stupidly fraudulent; you're argument hinges on a late composition date for the Gospels. You know this because if the composition date is early then the imaginary evidence you have for the pagan cults can't be evidence of borrowing. It's weak and you know it's weak.

 

I see. You want us to accept a fragment of papyrus that measures 2.5 x 3.5 inches, coming from a archaeologically undocumented source as being a fragment of the Gospel of John. As I pointed out, there is no way of saying that it is or isn’t what you and some scholars claim. It could very well be an early forgery, it could be part of the hypothetical “Signs Gospel”, it could even be the Autograph of the Gospel of John, but there is no way of telling. If you don’t like what I say, tough! You attempt to hold us to the high standards of historical proof and now we do the same for you. If you have undeniable evidence that it is what you say it, then give it or shut up about it! Even if it were what you claim, it is not enough to do any kind of textual comparison. This is something that I have mentioned several times but you forget with such ease. I find your pathetic attempt at ire over being called on your P52 both humorous and a poor attempt at sliding out of the fact that you actually have no evidence that hasn’t undergone several centuries of evolution and change to fit the varying political climates of the early Cult. You accuse me of bullshit, and yet you follow the greatest bullshit that ever besmirched this planet! The evidence for the PLAGIARISM from earlier religions by the Christ Cult is there, you are either unable to see it or dishonest enough to deny it….No skin off our noses! Incidentally I see that, like all apologists, you have ignored the question of Jesus’ birth year, probably because it calls to task that he might never have existed!

 

Did you even read the texts? Obviously not. I wouldn't have been dumb enough to prove your point through my citations. Prove your points about dying and ressurecting gods from the citations I gave about Attis, especially the one from the histories.

 

I could ask you the same and I know that the answer would be, “Only when I try to rebut a statement that, while true, does not agree with my superstition.” I rather doubt if you know the tenets of either the Cult of Attis, the Cult of Adonis, or of the followers of any of the older “pagan” religions. The evidence is there in the quotations that I gave you, if you cannot comprehend what you read, that would explain your clinging to a patently false and evil religion. I see no reason to enlighten you and doubt if your limited intellect could accept the enlightment, so run along sonny and play with those that tolerate fools and idiots! - Hemidall

[guacamole]

Been a while since I've been around. If you have no interest to pursue this further that's okay. Either way...

 

I see.  You want us to accept a fragment of papyrus that measures 2.5 x 3.5 inches, coming from a archaeologically undocumented source as being a fragment of the Gospel of John.  As I pointed out, there is no way of saying that it is or isn’t what you and some scholars claim.  It could very well be an early forgery, it could be part of the hypothetical “Signs Gospel”, it could even be the Autograph of the Gospel of John, but there is no way of telling. If you don’t like what I say, tough!  You attempt to hold us to the high standards of historical proof and now we do the same for you.  If you have undeniable evidence that it is what you say it, then give it or shut up about it!  Even if it were what you claim, it is not enough to do any kind of textual comparison.  This is something that I have mentioned several times but you forget with such ease.  I find your pathetic attempt at ire over being called on your P52 both humorous and a poor attempt at sliding out of the fact that you actually have no evidence that hasn’t undergone several centuries of evolution and change to fit the varying political climates of the early Cult.  You accuse me of bullshit, and yet you follow the greatest bullshit that ever besmirched this planet!  The evidence for the PLAGIARISM from earlier religions by the Christ Cult is there, you are either unable to see it or dishonest enough to deny it….No skin off our noses!  Incidentally I see that, like all apologists, you have ignored the question of Jesus’ birth year, probably because it calls to task that he might never have existed!

 

Ach. This again. You're only defense for the pagan borrowing thesis is to insist on the truthfulness of an unproveable hypothetical negative, that the gospels might not have existed before the extant records of pagan narratives. That's why I'm not dumb enough to accept your agument. That's why I called you on your bullshit. You claim that there is evidence for this borrowing but you haven't been forthcoming with it. You're basic defence of the theory depends on a lot of "hypotheticals"; the Mithraic cult being established early in a form that pre-figures Christianity - although there is not evidence provided to prove borrowing; supposed "astronomical evidence" for early dating of Krishna narratives, the Attis sources which pre-dated Christianity which supposedly proved borrowing-- I had to post the Attis sources for you, many of which disprove your insistence that they prove borrowing (i.e., the oft-cited Herodotus Myth which relates a story about a different character entirely, poems which do not describe cultic actions or doctrines despite your insistence that they do, etc.). You want me to loose focus of the basic premise of the discussion; you're making a positive claim, either prove the point or admit that the "evidence" is not so clear as you want it to be. The continuing problem with your argument is that you continue to stack (at least by implication) falsifiable claims on top of each other (It's possible to prove Christian borrowing from Pagan sources; It's possible to show that Ancient cults prefigured the Christian cult; It's possible to show that the gospels were composed at a late date). It's a problem for you because you can't actually prove any of those things; you can't prove the borrowing because it's dependent on early evidence of cults which you don't have (despite the positive assertions) and it's dependent on a late date for the composition of the Gospels which you can't prove (despite the positive assertions otherwise.)

 

You're best argument on the gospels is fundamentally problematic for you. You say that the gospels were composed late. Even if I were to admit to the hypothetical Q and the "works gospel", even without other texts of early christian composition (Thessalonians for example), you still have provided sources that predate the Pagan sources that prove borrowing. That'snot just weak, it's a stupid argument to say that the Gospels were influenced by the late Pagans even though other Christian documents still predate the late Pagan citations. Stop trying to prove that the late Pagan sources pre-figured Christianity, you just keep

digging yourself a deeper hole.

 

I'm more than willing to consider any pre-Christian evidence you have that would prove borrowing. I understand that it is a very very high standard of evidence, but I thought that was what skepticism was all about, no?

 

 

I could ask you the same and I know that the answer would be, “Only when I try to rebut a statement that, while true, does not agree with my superstition.”  I rather doubt if you know the tenets of either the Cult of Attis, the Cult of Adonis, or of the followers of any of the older “pagan” religions.  The evidence is there in the quotations that I gave you, if you cannot comprehend what you read, that would explain your clinging to a patently false and evil religion.  I see no reason to enlighten you and doubt if your limited intellect could accept the enlightment, so run along sonny and play with those that tolerate fools and idiots! - Hemidall

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Speaking of playing with fools and idiots, more bullshit. If the evidence is there in the quotations I cited, then prove it. The fact that you haven't done so is telling. The fact that you haven't cited any positive evidence whatsoever and rely instead on hypotheticals as "proof" indicates that you have no inkling what proof is.

 

fwiw

guaca.