Did Jesus Exist?

[Guest Abram]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Amanda]

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]

 

Hello Abram!

 

I am personally glad to see you. Let me share a little insight here with you. You come in like a whirlwind, and some of us are trying to digest what you are saying! Many of us give credit to established people on this site, which we have respectfully seen to be what we consider objective and quite accurate in their previous earnest personal investigations and posts, of what seems to sinerely interest them. Your 'matter of fact' assertions seem to be conflicting with the comfortable level of agreement here. Please, respect these opinions of those here... while submitting your own insights also. I'm very interested in what you have to say, without disrespecting other family members as being less important.

 

I don't know why you remain an unregistered guest here, that concerns me, yet I would hope that you are not one of the 'hit and run' type that often frequents here. If you are genuine about an open minded discussion, then you won't mind being initially tested on your position for it's boundaries and integrity. Hopefully this isn't a one night stand... or you are further validating the weakness of the veracity of your own beliefs.

 

I don't think anyone would be hostile to you, as long as your assertions avoid to communicate an elitism to them. I am very interested in what you have to contribute, and hope you continue to do so. I hardly know where you stand, from what you have offered so far, but I would sincerely like to know. Thanks.

[Clergicide]

I don't think anyone would be hostile to you

 

Have you even read any of the reaction to him?

 

This is the kind reaction I'd expect to see if I posted Jebus sucks cock at TWeb.

[Vixentrox]

Na...you would get banned there.

[Guest Abram]

Your 'matter of fact' assertions seem to be conflicting with the comfortable level of agreement here. Please, respect these opinions of those here... while submitting your own insights also.

 

If I come off as being 'matter of fact', it's probably because I don't generally speak to an issue unless I feel as though I am I competent enough to do so. For example, if you were discussing Buddhism, or Shintoism, then you probably wouldn't hear a peep from me as I just don't know enough about it.

 

It is in my nature to call BS when I see it, and frankly the essay that this thread is based on is absolutely full of it.

 

I don't know why you remain an unregistered guest here, that concerns me, yet I would hope that you are not one of the 'hit and run' type that often frequents here.

 

I stated earlier that I wanted to make a trial run here for a day or two first.

 

If you are genuine about an open minded discussion, then you won't mind being initially tested on your position for it's boundaries and integrity.

 

Not at all, but if you look back through this thread I suspect you will see a trail of rabid skeptic spittle on the ground from when they were chasing me with butchers knives and dull scissors. It was an interesting first few hours here, let's put it that way.

[Asuryan]

Hello Asuryan!

Hey there, Amanda!

 

Wow! All you wrote is very interesting about your country! I had to laugh about the "hissy fit"... Of course it is really very sad, but at least this person is denying the oppressive aspects... hopefully all that rubbish is having no effect on them.

Eh, sadly that friend of mine simply denies the problem. He acts like the problem isn't there. So he doesn't face it and he, well, somehow runs away from himself. Sometimes he says and does something that makes me notice how bad he feels about himself, and how he hates his sexuality, not because of it in itself, but because it's disapproved by his church.

Things like, he sees two men kissing (simply kissing) and even if he's an homosexual he goes all "yuck! Ewww! That is sick!". Or he exasperates his behaviour, acting all effeminate or spending whole evenings doing very dirty jokes about his homosexuality and pretending to make a move over everyone else. It can be... embarassing. It is almost like he's trying to make all of the prejudices against the more aggressive homosexuals true... as a shield.

 

I would like to ask you if you think that having the Vatican AND the Sistine Chapel there has had a great influence on the people there?

Sistine chapel? Well, it didn't influence the people here. It influenced the philosophers, savants and very cultured people that could afford to travel around the old world to expand their knowledge; but the common people didn't really travel around a lot. They stayed in place, the fields had to be tilled, the children had to be cared for, the beasts had to be tended to, and so on. Plus, traveling around for cultural reasons meant having LOTS of money, especially for buying a horse, paying for food and lodging and so on. Nobody could really afford to do that, apart from the really really small cultured elite.

 

Having the vatican here? Sure! It did influence people here, a whole lot. If you ask a commoner, here, what does s/he think about the Protestants... or for what matters, what does s/he think about every other church that is not the catholic church... their standard answer is "uh... they are those weird guys that let the priests get married, right?"

Catholics as a whole, in Italy, have absolutely no clue as what means being a christian but not a catholic. They only know what popular culture tells them to (or tv shows, too... 7TH HEAVEN is the main reference about Protestants, here!): meaning, that Protestant priests can marry. Nothing else. It takes a cultured person, with a degree or two, AND a person that has an interest in theology and history of christianity to be able to say something more about Protestants.

 

I live in tuscany. About 120 years ago, my region was part of the State of the Church territories. Garibaldi is a hero here as Washington is a hero there; this Garibaldi went over to Rome with an army and seized away the whole State of the Church territories (a good 1/4th of Italy today) and gave away that land to the common people. He created Italy almost from scrap. He was condemned to everlasting hell by the pope (Pio IX, a guy that was known for signing lots of death sentences of these "italian rebels"). If the catholic hell exists, he's still there. That pope is now a saint.

 

These cathedrals there, are absolutely spectacular! Many original Michael Angelos, of religous themes, hanging all over the place! Many other famous artists too! Gaudi's cathedral finished in modern archetecture, is incredible! There is a magnitude of spectacular artists, that projected their spiritual beliefs into their works everywhere! Breath-takingly beautiful! All those magnificent religous themed statutes and fountains too!

 

True.

But those works of art seems somehow less beautiful if you think that:

 

1) Those works of art, those magnificent cathedrals, were payed with the Decima tax of thousands of commoners (and almost forced labor from the same commoner "rabble"), meaning the tenth part of everything you've produced that year. For a commoner, such a tax often meant having an old one, or one of the smallest children, starve to death, since if you have 10 chickens and the church brings away one of them, you will have one less egg per day, which at those times could mean the difference between life and death for a child or an old one. Same thing can be said for sheep, or goats, less milk, less cheese, less meat... starving people. Those beautiful cathedrals and those works of art were created on the bones and bodies of the common people. History will never remember their names.

Sorry, that was emo, but I am really sorry for those poor guys when I think about that. Maybe because I've studied medieval history and thus I feel close to the subject.

 

2) The church destroyed tons of other ancient works of art, throughout the whole italian peninsula. In southern Italy, beautiful works of art established there by the greeks, beautiful temples built by the ancient romans (temples of Vesta, of Rome, of Jupiter, Mars, and so on, so many, all destroyed). The catholics went around inside those temples, defaced the ancient paintings, destroyed the ancient statues because they were "Heathen"...

Yes, they commissioned a lot of new works of art and churches and cathedrals to important artist, but apart from this being substantially propaganda (after all, those were things that needed LOTS of money, and the church was already a profit organization, picking up taxes and planning how to best spend them), maybe you know that a lot of artists were reprimanded for their visions and kind of art. Michelangelo painted the universal judgement and those people (and god too etc) were naked. Then the pope ordered someone (michelangelo himself, I think) to paint over ALL of those figures (souls, angels, god, devils etc.) some clothing to cover their jiggly parts. The story tells us that Michelangelo was distraught and pained from this kind of change to his art, especially because he ruined his neck and sight to complete those frescos. That wasn't the first time something like that happened... that wasn't the last time for sure. So often the church ordered an artist to delete that, cancel this, modify that, or be condemned as a heathen and processed by the inquisition. *sighs*

 

Here we have very diverse religions in the US, even in Christianity. How do you feel all these artistic Christian influences, of such grandeur, are still impacting your country?

 

They're impacting my country, well... by bringing here lots of tourism!

People from all around the world come here to visit our art cities. But do you know how does an Italian feel when asked to go visit some art cities?

Rome? "Eh, too many people, too much crowd."

Florence? "Are you crazy? It's summer! It's too hot in Florence in summer, only japaneses and americans can willingly go there in summer." (that is true )

Milan? "Ehh, too foggy and smoggy."

So where do the Catholic italians go when they plan a holiday?

The beaches of Sardinia, of Tuscany, or even Sharm el Sheik. It's the "trend" place to be this year, Sharm el Sheik. Catholics don't care a thing about those beautiful works of art... or better said, they do care something if they're already visiting rome or florence or milan for work reasons or something like that. For them, visiting the Sistine Chapel is no different from visiting a museum in Paris... you visit that museum because you're already there, but you don't go there mainly to see that museum after all.

 

 

And, what kinds of governments do you have?

 

Theoretically, a laicist republic.

At the moment, the right wingers (bound into a coalition with the roboant name "Home of Freedom") are ruling the country. In the latest 4 years, they just about destroyed the country. Economically and socially. I could explain more about that but it would be a long list, I will do that only if you're interested in it.

 

Are they very supportive of Catholic beliefs?

 

Home of Freedom? Yes.

VERY supportive.

All of the home of freedom politicians, deputies, representatives etc, are openly declared Catholics. When they go and meet the pope, they bow down in front of him and kiss his ring. When the pope is invited to speak at our Senate, the right wingers give him the Standing Ovation, every time, no matter what he says. Other choices of the Home of Freedom are: public school here, and tribunals too, must have crosses hanging from the walls, even if Italy is a non religious republic which on the constitution is clearly said means NO religious favoritism or preferences...

Or: if the pope says that something shouldn't be done, that thing shouldn't be done. The abortive pill? It's against the pope's beliefs, so we shouldn't allow it in Italy, no matter if abortion is permitted by a 1970 law... and so on.

Italy has always been in the hands of the pope and priests, sadly. Since 1880, when the King established some kind of pact with the Pope, making catholicism the State Religion. Since 1930, when Mussolini made some other pact with the Pope, more or less with the same result. Then in 1945 we became a republic, but the following year the DC (Democratic Christians) became the ruling party for about... 40 YEARS... and the catholic ruling over the country was resumed again...

The pope appears every day on every newspaper that counts, here. Every day his face on one of the first pages, with a really BIG article about his latest rants. Bishops and archbishops and cardinals are invited to write on those newspapers as opinionists, or even on gossip magazines, or even on TV program lists, or on TV shows, and so on and so on.

And I could go on and on. Italy is, hands down, a theocracy, even if it SHOULDN'T be, as our own constitution strictly forbids that!

Christianity is everywhere here. Pushed on you from all sides. Spoon fed to you even more than it is in america.

 

How does your government effect the gay community? 

99348[/snapback]

 

Guess!

Well, we have our Chamber of Deputy president that lately called homosexuals "Fags" and "Queers" within a clearly offensive speech. We have of course the whole government rejecting even the possibility of a legal recognition of gay couples (no gay marriages, no PACs) because it's "against natural order and against god's law". This means that if an homosexual is seriously ill, and s/he goes to the hospital, his/her partner cannot sleep at the hospital with him/her, as a lawfully wedded husband or wife could. There is no kind of social security for gays... ah, another thing, gays are not allowed to donate blood. Because our Public Health Minister said that being gay is a risky behaviour, exactly as if a guy slept with more than 2 or 3 women per month.

So, if you are gay and are together with your partner, and faithful, since 10 or 11 years, it's the same thing as if you were a drunken teenager jumping from one bed to another.

In sicily, the police brought a gay away his driver license, because the magistrate ordered them to do so. "Being gay is a disturbed behaviour, a personality disorder, and one has to be healthy in both body and mind to drive a car. So... if you are gay, you shouldn't be allowed to drive because you could be dangerous to others".

How does it sound?

[Gnosis of Disbelief]

If I come off as being 'matter of fact', it's probably because I don't generally speak to an issue unless I feel as though I am I competent enough to do so.  For example, if you were discussing Buddhism, or Shintoism, then you probably wouldn't hear a peep from me as I just don't know enough about it.

 

It is in my nature to call BS when I see it, and frankly the essay that this thread is based on is absolutely full of it.

I stated earlier that I wanted to make a trial run here for a day or two first.

Not at all, but if you look back through this thread I suspect you will see a trail of rabid skeptic spittle on the ground from when they were chasing me with butchers knives and dull scissors.  It was an interesting first few hours here, let's put it that way.

99592[/snapback]

 

 

I think part of the reason for this is that you didn't really state where you

were coming from (as far as I can tell, there's been a lot of traffic on this

thread, so I might have missed it), and then your approach sounded too

much like preaching. A lot of fundamentalists do traipse through here,

preaching to us without ever listening to us, so when you took the approach

that you did, everyone assumed that you were one of them.

 

Most of the folks on this site are atheists (myself included), but if you try

to discuss things and not sound so preachy, they will give you a

fair shake. (However, don't expect everyone to roll over and agree with

you on everything, either!)

[Clergicide]

I think part of the reason for this is that you didn't really state where you

were coming from (as far as I can tell, there's been a lot of traffic on this

thread, so I might have missed it), and then your approach sounded too

much like preaching.  A lot of fundamentalists do traipse through here,

preaching to us without ever listening to us, so when you took the approach

that you did, everyone assumed that you were one of them.

 

Most of the fundies don't chuck Paul, the OT, John most of Luke, Mathew, the ending of Mark, and quite a few other parts of the bible to the flame though.

[Gnosis of Disbelief]

Well, if I recall correctly, he didn't mention those things until much

later in the thread. When I first began reading his initial posts, I

thought that he was a fundy. I didn't realize that he wasn't until

later on. Had he mentioned where he was coming from up front,

I don't think he would have had as chilly of reception as he got.

 

I don't know why you're laughing at me, I certainly did not attack

him.

[mako]

Pop quiz: What is the age of the oldest extant copies of the Jewish “holy scripture” and what is the age of the oldest extant copies of the New Testament. Even though the Avesta was codified in the 1200’s, the individual books exist in much older copies, most around the same time as the oldest copies of the OT and NT. So the age of the extant Avesta means nothing. We need to look at the languages that these “holy scriptures” were written in to get any idea of their age. Because the language of the Hebrew sacred writings are epigraphically the same in word usage, context and sentence structure as other post-exilic extant inscriptions and literary examples, it is easy to show that the Jewish scriptures were written after the return from Babylonia, during the initial set-up phase of the Temple State demanded by the Persian government as an acting imperial “governor” or control. We know that the NT was written primarily in Greek, although some scholars contend that there were Aramaic copies, without any proof or extant examples. Dating the NT is relatively simple, Paul seems to be early, around 40 CE, Mark around 85-90 CE and Matthew around 115 CE, John possibly (if you buy the PS51) around 124 CE and Luke and Acts around 145-150 CE (and maybe even later), The rest, including those pseudepigrapha claiming to be letters of Paul date from anywhere in the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE. The Avesta was written originally in what most scholars call “Avestan”, since it isn’t Old Bacitran and appears to be very closely related to the older version of Sanskrit. This language was replace by Zend around the advent of the foundation of the Persian Empire. The traditional dating of the Avesta is sometimes in the 7th or 6th centuries BCE, between 660-583 BCE. There are scholars that contend for a much older date. The language of the Avesta puts it at several centuries prior to the codification of the Jewish scriptures. This shows that it was available during the Babylonian Exile for the priests of YHWH to “borrow” ideas from, such as the dualistic nature of God and Satan (who is shown in Job, a Moabite book borrowed by the Jews, as a lackey, a go-fer of YHWH) and eventually for the newly formed Christians to borrow from the son of Ahura Mazda – Mithra!

[Clergicide]

Dating the NT is relatively simple, Paul seems to be early, around 40 CE

99691[/snapback]

 

And why would you randomly assign that number to Paul? What in his writing suggests he would be that early? At 40 the Jews really would have stoned him for blasphemy. But I'm curious what your evidence of it is.

[Guest Abram]

I think part of the reason for this is that you didn't really state where you

were coming from (as far as I can tell, there's been a lot of traffic on this

thread, so I might have missed it), and then your approach sounded too

much like preaching.  A lot of fundamentalists do traipse through here,

preaching to us without ever listening to us, so when you took the approach

that you did, everyone assumed that you were one of them.

 

Most of the folks on this site are atheists (myself included), but if you try

to discuss things and not sound so preachy, they will give you a

fair shake.

99616[/snapback]

 

Experience tells me otherwise. I came in, commented that the essay this thread was based on was highly inaccurate, and BOOM. Mad Cow disease began spreading among (some of) your membership. My heretical ideas get a more pleasant reception even in the fundamentalist corners of theologyweb. What does that tell you?

 

Perhaps if you all took a few moments to wipe the froth away from your mouths when a new person arrives, you might find you learn something from them. Unless of course the exercise is merely to entertain yourself at the expense of visiting Christians. That would have some sort of logical basis to it, so I could at least understand it.

[Mythra]

Abram: for what it's worth - didn't mean any offense personally.

 

We just have so many fundamentalists coming in here (and I realize that you don't fit that mold) that we immediately go on the attack.

 

Stick around. You'll see we aren't really that bad. For the most part we try to be reasonable to reasonable people.

 

When you get a personal attack, just ignore it and move on.

 

You really are welcome here.

[Gnosis of Disbelief]

Experience tells me otherwise.  I came in, commented that the essay this thread was based on was highly inaccurate, and BOOM.  Mad Cow disease began spreading among (some of) your membership.  My heretical ideas get a more pleasant reception even in the fundamentalist corners of theologyweb.  What does that tell you?

 

Perhaps if you all took a few moments to wipe the froth away from your mouths when a new person arrives, you might find you learn something from them.  Unless of course the exercise is merely to entertain yourself at the expense of visiting Christians.  That would have some sort of logical basis to it, so I could at least understand it.

99775[/snapback]

 

 

Most of the new people who arrive here are pretty obviously ex-christian

or pretty obviously fundamentalist. This does create a bit of a reactionary

atmosphere here. However, I think most of us now get that you're not a

fundamentalist (and for the few who don't, well, screw'em).

[Guest Guest]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

So the age of the extant Avesta means nothing.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

[Ouroboros]

Abram, I like your posts, and I really think you should register as a user. There's no cost to it.

[Guest Abram / Rameus]

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

 

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

 

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

 

<End of Sermon>

 

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

 

Your old friend,

Rameus

[Clergicide]

[Vulgaris Prime]

Wait, this guy's Rameus?

 

Could we get some admin confirmation on this? There is a certain someone who never registers, likes to troll us, and talks a lot of shit about Rameus, and I think this might be one of his stupid little tricks. I just wanna be sure.

[DoubleDee]

 

99800[/snapback]

I'll second that!

[Gnosis of Disbelief]

I'm fairly new to this forum, so I'm not familiar with Rameus. Was

he always this dramatic? Whoever this guy is, he does seem to know

a lot about the subject matter.

[Vulgaris Prime]

He was, more or less. Rameus was a very knowledgeable guy, which is why so many Christian trolls here hated him, and certain ones like to talk crap about him - he was one of their larger pains in the ass.

[Dio]

Abram/Rameus' point is well made (to me anyway) concerning my unsophisticated and uncritical approach to believing things I read on the 'net or in popular books. I wish he were a frequent contributor here because I know I am unable to do the research and analysis in my limited time that he has already done. He is also laying the groundwork for even further research and discovery. Discussions such as this only leave me wanting to read and know more. However I understand that he has important pursuits to which he must attend.

 

Well, it was fun while it lasted... Come back soon.

[Ouroboros]

Your old friend,

Rameus

99795[/snapback]

Well, you did sound kind of Christian of a different flavor. (Cherry or Strawberry/Vanilla, me'thinks)

Anyway, you had me wondering there. Well done, you got me!

 

To bad I never got to know you when you were active. I would've learned a lot... bummer...

[Clergicide]

Wait, this guy's Rameus?

 

Could we get some admin confirmation on this? 

99802[/snapback]

 

That was Rameus. There's your confirmation.

 

Oh and:

 

Check it out, I made out a specific list of doctrines I have pitched out the

window.  Hahahaha.  I wonder if anyone will catch on now...

 

Rameus