Did Jesus Exist?

October 31, 2005

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.

I'm waiting...

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.

Which doesn't change the fact that Mithraism was a recognised military religion in 67BC.

Aww... did I not fall for your red herring?

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

Assertion, with no evidence to back it up...

Or in other words... Put up or shut up.

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).

And the rest of the sources I mentioned? Oh, didn't you notice that I used MORE THAN ONE SOURCE?

Attempting to discredit one source is futile when there are more than one being used.

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).

Nope... The major legend, and indeed the one that was accepted overall, is that Isis buried each part as she came upon it...

Which is why Osiris has 14 different graves... according the the legend. (P.s. acording to the legend, the only part she couldn't find was the Phallus... there is an alternative legend that states she DID sew him back up, but had to fashion a phallus out of wood, which was infused with Osiris's power and impregnated her... still leaves her a virgin.)

The other problem, and you didn't notice it even though I mentioned it, is that Horus was born while Osiris was dead but BEFORE he was torn to pieces... The legend clearly shows that she went on TWO searches for his body, both taking many years, and that Horus was an infant at the end of the first search.

How Isis could give birth to a child before she was impregnated is a problem that your claim introduces.

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.
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.

99414[/snapback]

Believe me, nothing you've come out with is scholarly... Hell, nothing you've come out with is really worth the effort of replying to, it being a mish-mash of opinionated clap-trap. But, I'm bored, so I've made the effort...

October 31, 2005

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.

99421[/snapback]

Sheesh... didn't you know that he's completely right? Anything that doesn't agree must be from discredited sources.

I suppose that would include reality...

October 31, 2005

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.

99421[/snapback]

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.

October 31, 2005

(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.)
99382[/snapback]

You're information is a bit incomplete.

Acharya S received an undergraduate degree in Classics, Greek Civilization, from Franklin & Marshall College. She is a member of the institute for the study of Ancient Greek Civilization, the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Greece. She was accepted in 2005 as a fellow of the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion.

Doherty has a degree in Ancient History and Classical Languages.

G.A. Wells is a Emeritus Professor of German at the Birkbeck College, University of London, and is known as a New Testament scholar. Prof. Wells is a former Chairman of the Rationalist Press Association. He studied at the University of London and Bern, and holds degrees in German, philosophy, and natural science. He has taught German at London University since 1949, and has been Professor of German at Birkbeck College since 1968.

I don't think they're completely incompetent to do the necessary research for debunking Christianity's roots. You don't have to be the Pope to do it.

It's worse when apologists claim to have degrees they don't hold at all. Like Kent Hovind getting his from a degree mill.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html

October 31, 2005

I'm waiting...Which doesn't change the fact that Mithraism was a recognised military religion in 67BC.

I have provided you with ample source material, if you choose not to check up on your own misunderstandings then that is your decision to make.

Or in other words... Put up or shut up.And the rest of the sources I mentioned? Oh, didn't you notice that I used MORE THAN ONE SOURCE?

Yes and many of them were based on discredited scholarship. Honestly, I'm not making this up. I'm not some nitwit fundamentalist here.

Attempting to discredit one source is futile when there are more than one being used.Nope... The major legend, and indeed the one that was accepted overall, is that Isis buried each part as she came upon it...

Honestly, I'm trying to help you correct your understanding here. Will you believe one of your own skeptical sources. Fine, a Wikipedia entry, the skeptics favorite source:

In the Ennead, Osiris is the husband of Isis, and sibling of Set, all of whom are the great-grandchildren of the creator god Atum, and Horus is not present within the system. In the Ogdoad, Osiris is not present within the system, and Horus is the husband of Isis, and son of Ra, the creator god. When the Ennead and Ogdoad merged, Ra and Atum were identified as one-another, becoming Atum-Ra, and Horus was initially considered the fifth sibling of Osiris, Isis, Nebet Het (Nephthys), and Set. However, Horus's mother, Hathor, gradually became identified as a form of Isis, leading to Horus becoming said to be Isis' son, and therefore the son of Osiris.

As Osiris was the god of the land of the dead, a legend grew up seeking to explain how Osiris could father a son who was very demonstrably alive (Horus was originally the god of the sky) with his wife, who was also very much a part of the land of the living. So it became said that Osiris died, thus being able to be lord of the dead, but his wife, with the magical powers that Isis was believed to possess, resurrected him for long enough to have sex, resulting in the birth of Horus.

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

Now do you believe me, or are you going to be skeptical of the skeptics now? Do yourself a favor, read the criticisms of Cumont's work and then perhaps we'll be on the same page. But it doesn't seem like you are willing to dig in for yourself, so I suppose we'll need to resort to more web links (although you are already getting entirely too much information off the web!):

Apparently refuted and out-of-date; exercise caution, February 23, 2001
Reviewer: Geoff Puterbaugh (Chiang Mai, T. Suthep, A. Muang Thailand) - See all my reviews

Cumont's entire account of Roman Mithraism is based on the supposedly-obvious idea that Roman Mithraism arose from Persian or Iranian religion, in some important sense. Cumont took this relationship as a given fact, and worked on from there.

In recent years, scholars have asked the question again: is there any relationship between this Roman cult and Iranian Zoroastrianism? Many unique, all-important markers of Roman Mithraism (no female members allowed, total secrecy, the central symbol of Mithras killing the bull) simply have NO counterpart in the Iranian religions, while the important aspects of Iranian religions are likewise missing from the Roman cult (no mention of Ahura Mazda or Ahriman, for example!)

As a result, one must read Cumont with one eye always open to the alarming possibility that the book is entirely wrong-headed!

Was this review helpful to you?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=glance&s=books

Believe me, nothing you've come out with is scholarly... Hell, nothing you've come out with is really worth the effort of replying to, it being a mish-mash of opinionated clap-trap. But, I'm bored, so I've made the effort...

Honestly, you are being very close-minded. This is what I'm used to dealing with when I talk to fundamentalists of my own religion. I was expecting more open minded individuals here. Do what you will with this information, I have tried to help you navigate through this minefield of misinformation (on both the Christian and Skeptic ends), but if you are going to be hostile towards me, then perhaps I should move on.

October 31, 2005

You're information is a bit incomplete.

Acharya S received an undergraduate degree in Classics, Greek Civilization, from Franklin & Marshall College. She is a member of the institute for the study of Ancient Greek Civilization, the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Greece. She was accepted in 2005 as a fellow of the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion.

Doherty has a degree in Ancient History and Classical Languages.

G.A. Wells is a Emeritus Professor of German at the Birkbeck College, University of London, and is known as a New Testament scholar. Prof. Wells is a former Chairman of the Rationalist Press Association. He studied at the University of London and Bern, and holds degrees in German, philosophy, and natural science. He has taught German at London University since 1949, and has been Professor of German at Birkbeck College since 1968.

My information was incomplete (because I was trying to keep my remarks as short as possible, not write three in-depth bio's of the authors) but as you have demonstrated, it was accurate. If my information was accurate, what exactly is the problem?

I don't think they're completely incompetent to do the necessary research for debunking Christianity's roots. You don't have to be the Pope to do it.

No but they are not "well respected Biblical scholars" either as they were described.

It's worse when apologists claim to have degrees they don't hold at all. Like Kent Hovind getting his from a degree mill.

Kent Hovind is a fool. There are far too many fools in the corridors of Christian Apologia.

October 31, 2005

I have provided you with ample source material, if you choose not to check up on your own misunderstandings then that is your decision to make.

I checked... Mithraism was in existence in the Roman Empire in 67 BC. You doubted that it was in existence before Christianity was. You claimed that this showed that Christianity was there first.

The evidence has proven you wrong and no amount of waffle on your part is going to change that fact.

Not really much misunderstanding on my side here...

Yes and many of them were based on discredited scholarship. Honestly, I'm not making this up. I'm not some nitwit fundamentalist here.

THEN PROVE IT! It's no good just claiming it, try proving it...

After all, you want to be believed when you say you're not just making it up...

Honestly, I'm trying to help you correct your understanding here. Will you believe one of your own skeptical sources. Fine, a Wikipedia entry, the skeptics favorite source:

Aww... only able to quote a part that agrees with you?

At the time the myth initially developed, it was believed that the gods had emerged from under the acacia tree owned by Iusaaset, Atum's shadow, requiring an explanation of how Horus came to be born at the tree. Thus the original form of the myth states that Osiris was killed by a wooden sarcophagus secretly being made to his measurements, and then a party held where the coffin was offered to whoever it fitted. A few people tried to fit in, but to no avail, until Osiris was encouraged to try, who, as soon as he lay back, had the lid slammed on him and it sealed closed. The coffin was thrown into a river, causing Osiris to drown, but the coffin eventually was rescued by Isis and Nepthys, who used magic to bring life to Osiris/Horus inside. The coffin sprouted greenery, eventually turning into an acacia tree, from which the newly young Horus emerged.

Oh look... now we've even got a father/son as one deal, along with a ressurection.

Note how there is no "torn apart" in there, nor any "brought to life and shagged"... but you have managed to draw attention to yet another common theme between Osiris and Jesus.

Aren't you trying to show that they don't have any common themes?

Now do you believe me, or are you going to be skeptical of the skeptics now?

I'm skeptical of everyone... until they can provide backing evidence, and even then I take it with a pinch of salt.

As it is, you're not even giving evidences, just opinions...

Do yourself a favor, read the criticisms of Cumont's work and then perhaps we'll be on the same page. But it doesn't seem like you are willing to dig in for yourself, so I suppose we'll need to resort to more web links (although you are already getting entirely too much information off the web!):

You mean like this one?

A Towering Intellect in the Field of Mithraic Studies, September 12, 2005

Reviewer: nhprman (NH, USA) - See all my reviews

Franz Cumont is a scholar who spent his entire life studying Mithras, and one which students of the New Age have been trying to "refute," debunk and reinterpret for a generation. However, Cumont remains the towering figure in the field of Mithraic research.

This 1956 work is a copy of a 1903 Dover book, which itself was a boiled-down English translation of a far larger, 2-volume French-language work published decades before in Cumont's native Belgium. Cumont surveyed literally thousands of fragments from Mithraea, the ancient worship centers of the Mithraic religion.

While certainly more examples of Mithraic art and Mithraea have been found since then, his work provides a baseline from which we can begin to see a faith travel from people to people, continent to continent over many generations.

That's where the New Agers come in. Blatant attempts underway to create a "Wiccan" version of Mithraism (the latest being a ludicrous book by P. Nabarz,) or to "prove" that ancient Mithras worshippers were obsessed with the stars and little else (see Berkeley prof. Ulansey) or to sever the Persian Mithras from later, Roman worshippers, are all transparent reinterpretations of history.

Whether this is based on the need to see Mithras as relevant to the current "witch craze" and Earth-centered pagan thinking, or simply ways to cash in on a genuinely mysterious divinity by holding fancy conferences and seminars in which "new" theories are proposed, I don't know.

Whatever the reasons, I would steer clear of the Wiccanizers and innovators, and stick with Franz Cumont.

Are you really trying, or are you just grabbing the first thing to hand that agrees with you?

Honestly, you are being very close-minded. This is what I'm used to dealing with when I talk to fundamentalists of my own religion. I was expecting more open minded individuals here. Do what you will with this information, I have tried to help you navigate through this minefield of misinformation (on both the Christian and Skeptic ends), but if you are going to be hostile towards me, then perhaps I should move on.

99431[/snapback]

By all means move on... the fact that you've been proven wrong on so many things must be embarrassing for you.

The additional fact that you didn't find any gullible fools that you could wow with your idiocy will only be an additional incentive for you to shove off...

October 31, 2005

My information was incomplete (because I was trying to keep my remarks as short as possible, not write three in-depth bio's of the authors) but as you have demonstrated, it was accurate. If my information was accurate, what exactly is the problem?

Little tip... Incomplete means that it's not accurate...

No but they are not "well respected Biblical scholars" either as they were described.

"generally written by highly qualified biblical scholars"

Doesn't say that the three you singled out were "well respected"... you've got to admit there's some highly qualified biblical scholars in the list given.

Isn't it fun when you get caught out using a strawman?

Kent Hovind is a fool. There are far too many fools in the corridors of Christian Apologia.

99432[/snapback]

Yes... so why are you using their tactics?

October 31, 2005

As I have alread noted, the Mithra cult is of great antiquity. However it did not come to Rome until relatively late, and we have very little data to speculate as to what the original tenets of the religion were. Most of our data comes from the 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D.

After all, you want to be believed when you say you're not just making it up...Aww... only able to quote a part that agrees with you?
At the time the myth initially developed, it was believed that the gods had emerged from under the acacia tree owned by Iusaaset, Atum's shadow, requiring an explanation of how Horus came to be born at the tree. Thus the original form of the myth states that Osiris was killed by a wooden sarcophagus secretly being made to his measurements, and then a party held where the coffin was offered to whoever it fitted. A few people tried to fit in, but to no avail, until Osiris was encouraged to try, who, as soon as he lay back, had the lid slammed on him and it sealed closed. The coffin was thrown into a river, causing Osiris to drown, but the coffin eventually was rescued by Isis and Nepthys, who used magic to bring life to Osiris/Horus inside. The coffin sprouted greenery, eventually turning into an acacia tree, from which the newly young Horus emerged.

Oh look... now we've even got a father/son as one deal, along with a ressurection.

If you recall, regarding Egyptian religion I wrote: 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. Yes, there are variations to nearly all of their legends, as I said. And obviously I wasn't trying to hide anything from you as I provided you a link to the page! I'm beginning to wonder why you are such a hostile individual. Again, if I have offended you please accept my apologies.

Note how there is no "torn apart" in there, nor any "brought to life and shagged"... but you have managed to draw attention to yet another common theme between Osiris and Jesus.

Aren't you trying to show that they don't have any common themes?I'm skeptical of everyone... until they can provide backing evidence, and even then I take it with a pinch of salt.

As it is, you're not even giving evidences, just opinions...You mean like this one?