Blogger binobolumai said...
A. Were elements the other gods' myths copied from each other?
For example, according to the stories ancient gods all did miracles. That's sort of what made them gods, right?
Meta:
NO, that is not what makes them gods. You need to realize the basic principle that something so general it could come from anywhere is not evidence of copying. For example every myth has the sun coming up in the morning. Does this mean they are all copied form an original myth that had the sun coming up? No, it means everyone on earth experinces this phenomenon every morning so they all work it into their views.
Things like healing, and strange events, signs and portents, these are things that people experienced, things all that people interpreted from the aspects of nature around them. That is no more evidence of one copying another than all of the saying the sun comes up in the morning.
Most scholars rule out any sort of borrowing by Christianity from the mystery cults for their notions of rebirth and salvation. There may have been some linguistic influences, but the most direct would have been Hellenistic, not Persian or Egyptian. (See W. F. Flemington, The New Testament Doctrine of Baptism (London: SPCK, 1948), 76-81.)
Eliade's theory of the Mono myth is more likely as an origin for ideas of redemption and sacrifice than is conscious copying. It's a psychological archetype. These concepts, the concept of a god itself, the concept of sacrifice, redemption, resurrection, these are archetypes. That means these shared phenomena that are found in all cultures would would be found in all cultures even though they had no contact with each other at all. These are metaphors that are in our psyche and they are universal. We would find them without any influence from other cultures.
BB goes on
So my questions are:
1. Do you think these gods really did miracles? Or do you think someone just made up the other gods' miracle stories?
Meta:
First that's going to lead to a protracted discussion about what is a Miracle? I don't necessarily agree that any did actual miracles. But I'll stipulate that they all had "supernatural" happenings. That need not be a thing they copied. That's like saying they all have the sun so they all copied each others myths of the sun. The sun is available to us all. It makes more sense to say they have the sun in their myths because they all had the sun. They all had these things in their myths because they are common arche types that we all hve in the psyche.
One of the fallacious assumptions you are making here is to think that only Hebrews could have miracles, or that God would only work in one culture. The Bible actually tells us (Acts 17: 21-29) that God works in call Cultures. See my pages on "Salvation and other faiths." It need not be that ideas of miracles and healing are copies at all since these are natural ideas that appeal to the mind based upon need and imagination. To the extent that God has given us a means of acquiring prevenient grace and experiencing the supernatural, there is no reason to think these things don't happen in other cultures. In that Passage in Acts 17 (v27) Luke says:"God did this [created humanity and scattered them into different cultures] so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out and find him though he is not far form each one of us." This implies that God not only wants to work in other cultures, but that it is actually his plan to do things in this way. Perhaps through a diversity of insights we might come to know God better. Perhaps it means that through spreading the Gospel people would come to contemplate better the meaning of God's love. That could actually be construed as a basis for the arche types.
BB:
2. You know other gods healed the sick, right? Asclepius did. Isis did. Chaldean miracle workers did, Syrian magic men did, Apollonius of Tyana did, Glycon did, Vespasian did, etc. You know this, right?
Meta: First of all, I would have to examine each individual case to see if they have any sort of similarity to Biblical healing. Most of them do not. Most of them are not "healing" in the Biblical sense for example Isis, whom did she heal? If you are thinking of Osiris she did not heal him she turned him into a living mummy with a dull thoughtless half life. She did not restore him to his flesh and blood state. Some of the others such as Apollonius of Tyana could be copying Heberw Prophets or even Jesus.
Secondly, and this is more to the point, everyone gets sick. Most people recover at least once from some form of illness. So the idea of being healed is too general and too universal to use as signs of copying. This the basic principle you need to learn. If it's so general and universal that everyone has it anyway, there's no need to explain it through copying. If it is connected to arche types there is no need to explain through copying.
BB:
So here's the question: The idea of a magic man healing the sick, was that something new and original to each of these godmen, or was it an idea that was part of ancient culture that got applied, in made up stories, to various people / gods?Meta:Your assumption is that if the Bible was true only Hebrews would have healing, or even the idea of healing. That is a false assumption. Especially the idea that only Hebrews could think of healing. Because certainly any culture could come up with the wish that they have magic healing. There's no need to expalin that through copying.
BB:
What criteria do you use to make this judgment?
Meta: common sense, logic, history, psychology and the works of Eliade and Campbell.
BB:
Where did you derive those criteria?Meta: My head, books, graudate school (ie works of Eliade, Keranie, and Campbell).
BB:
B. On what basis do you theorize that Jesus' magic miracle stories were not similarly invented by credulous primitives?
Meta: (1) They are attested to by eye witnesses. There is no such attestation for any mythologcial character.
(2) I've experinced miracles myself. So If miracles happen today they probably happened back then.
(3) Good scientific evidence of miracles exists at Lourdes.
BB:
What criteria do you use to make this judgment?You have to be more specific. Frame the context in which you want to discuss criteria
BB:
Where did you derive those criteria?
Bino Bolumai
Meta: My own life, books, see the link above.
The assumptions you make that the similarity of any two things must imply that the Bible authors copied it from pagans is nonsense. First of all you totally ignored the evidence I put out that all the elements of Mithrism said to be like Christianity were copied by Mithrists form Christianity. The evidence is that we have no artfacts, texts, or discriptions of Mithrism form any writer that that pre dates the time of Paul. Secondly, the evidence from Cumont shows clearly that Chrsitianity and Mithrism rarely came into contact, they were not major competitors and that Mithrism post dates the major developments of Christianity. There is even such evidence which will be forth coming in parts 2 and 3 which I wil get to very soon.
The ideas you choose are way too general to be evdience. But this is a very important point. Wheh I first stated doing internet apologetics in 1998, the Mythers had a totally different set of arguments. Those arguments have whittaled down little by little over the years. This is a process I not only watched but am proud to say participated in. The figures I picked out to attack on my site (Mithra, Hercules, Attis, Osiris, ect) represent the dying/rising Savior god argument as it was made in 99 by most mthers. Over the years it's been whittaled away. For example they don't claim Osiris anymore, because my information on Osiris was so deveistating they moved it to Horus. But I've bashed the Horis hypothesis. They argued Justin Martyr for a time but then I spend some real quality time on that one in some major pissing sessions on carm then they dropped that. Now they are doing mriacles and healing miracle men.That's just another retreate from the original hypothesis which ahs been dahsed so many times they don't go near it anymore. But since they hate Christiantiy and their mission is to destory faith in the bible (as assinged by Skeptical inquier and the committee on proapaganda) they are still flogging it over miracles and such.But that's a hopeless task because its so general itsl like saing all the cultures that say good morning to each other must have copied good morning form some original group.
Hebrews said "good morning" when they first woke up.
Egypitians said good morning when they first woke up.
therefore, Hebrew religion is copied after Egiptian religion.
Anothy Flew said (when he was young, before he lost his marbles--this is actually a quote form his gardener parable so he said this original in battle against Christianity as a major atheist thinker of this day:
The death of a fine brash hypothesis comes through a thousands qualifications.This is what we see at work in the Jesus myth senerio. All of their original major lines of evidence have been smashed and the orignal hypoethsis has been quailfied so many times that now they are down to these piddeling ideas that are so veg and general they don't require any sort of copying to be expalined.
More evidence that the dying/rising savior gods are false concepts:
E. Tammuz
In Babylonian Mythology was the consort of the goddess Ishtor. He was also the god who died and rose again continually. This was another crop cycle relationship based upon nature. (Herbert Spencer Robinson, Myths and Legends of all Nations, New York: Bantum Books, 1950, 13-16). This is purely mythological. There is no historical figure that Tammuz is based upon. He did not die and rise as a flesh and blood human, but only as a mythical figure. He healed no real people, only the mythical goddess Ishtar. Since his dying and rising is crop related we can suspect that he is not even faintly based upon a real figure. This was a copy of nature for fertility purposes. He was consort to Ishtar who was goddess of 'love' in the crass sense, related to fertility.
1) No Virginal Birth
There are no stories of Tammuz as the product of a virgin birth. I suspect that documentation comes from Achyra S. She has been totally discredited as one who gets her information from UFO contacts.
2) No Crucifixion
He was not crucified but killed by a wild bore (Ibid.).
3) No Resurrection
Easter: Myth, Hallucination or History
by Edwin M. Yamauchi
(prof. of History at Miami University, Osford Ohio)
Updated 22 March 1997"In the case of the Mesopotamian Tammuz (Sumerian Dumuzi), his alleged resurrection by the goddess Inanna-Ishtar had been assumed even though the end of both the Sumerian and the Akkadian texts of the myth of "The Descent of Inanna (Ishtar)" had not been preserved. Professor S. N. Kramer in 1960 published a new poem, "The Death of Dumuzi," that proves conclusively that instead of rescuing Dumuzi from the Underworld, Inanna sent him there as her substitute (cf. my article, "Tammuz and the Bible," Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXXIV [1965], 283-90).He was not a savior figure, he did not have a cult of salvation seekers founding a mystery religion after him, he was not a savior but a symbol of the crop cycles, the male counterpart to the Greek Procepheny.
A line in a fragmentary and obscure text is the only positive evidence that after being sent to the Underworld Dumuzi may have had his sister take his place for half the year "(cf. S. N. Kramer, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 183 [1966], 31). "Tammuz was identified by later writers with the Phoenician Adonis, the beautiful youth beloved of Aphrodite. According to Jerome, Hadrian desecrated the cave in Bethlehem associated with Jesus' birth by consecrating it with a shrine of Tammuz-Adonis. Although his cult spread from Byblos to the Greco-Roman world, the worship of Adonis was never important and was restricted to women. P. Lambrechts has shown that there is no trace of a resurrection in the early texts or pictorial representations of Adonis; the four texts that speak of his resurrection are quite late, dating from the second to the fourth centuries A.D.". ("La 'resurrection' d'Adonis," in Melanges Isidore Levy, 1955, pp. 207-40).
F. Krishna
Actually Krishna is the only one of these figures who bares a striking similarity to Jesus, but not in any of the characteristics mentioned above. This will be dealt with in the argument below (IV) but suffice to say Krinsha is a totally mythological being. There is no real evidence that he ever existed, no record of people who met him, no body of his teachings, no eyewitnesses, and no historical personage to whom he can be related. Within in the context of the myth, he bares no similarity to Jesus. He was not a teacher or a healer but a King and Chariot driver, a warrior and archer. (Robinson, 53).
1) no virgin birth
It simply is not there, it is not part of his story.
2) no crucifixion
Killed by an arrow in battle.
(Robinson, 62) (Achyra S. apparently, and Kane on his website say that he was hung on a cross and then shot with an arrow, but the graphic Kane shows which he says shows him on a cross includes no cross at all. I find no record of a cross any of the literature I have read of him, and since he was killed in battle one wonders what that cross was doing on the battle field).
3) No resurrection, he does not raise from the dead, no story pictures him doing this.
G. Attis
"Cybele, also known as the Great Mother, was worshiped through much of the Hellenistic world. She undoubtedly began as a goddess of nature. Her early worship included orgiastic ceremonies in which her frenzied male worshipers were led to castrate themselves, following which they became "Galli" or eunuch-priests of the goddess. Cybele eventually came to be viewed as the Mother of all gods and the mistress of all life." (Ronald Nash," Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Religions?" The Christian Research Journal, Winter 1994, p.8)
[CRJ: http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/crijrnl/web/crjo169a.html
1) No Virgin Birth
There is nothing in the story about a Virgin birth.
2) Not Crucified But Self-Castrated!
Cyble loved a Shaped named Attis. Because he was not sufficiently attentive she drove him mad. In response to his madness Attis castrated himself and died (Ibid).
2) Supposed "Resurrection" false and related to crop cycles"The presuppositions of the interpreter tend to determine the language used to describe what followed Attis's death. Many writers refer carelessly to the "resurrection of Attis." But surely this is an exaggeration. There is no mention of anything resembling a resurrection in the myth, which suggests that Cybele could only preserve Attis's dead body. Beyond this, there is mention of the body's hair continuing to grow, along with some movement of his little finger. In some versions of the myth, Attis's return to life took the form of his being changed into an evergreen tree. Since the basic idea underlying the myth was the annual vegetation cycle, any resemblance to the bodily resurrection of Christ is greatly exaggerated." (Ibid)[Ouch!]C. Attis
1) Late Sources For AttisMost of our information about the cult describes its practices during its later Roman period. But the details are slim and almost all the source material is relatively late, certainly datable long after the close of the New Testament canon. (Ronald Nash, Christian Research Journal, Winter 94 p.8)
Lambrechts has also shown that Attis, the consort of Cybele, does not appear as a "resurrected" god until after A.D. 1 50. ( "Les Fetes 'phrygiennes' de Cybele et d' Attis," Bulletin de l'lnstitut Historique Belge de Rome, XXVII 11952], 141-70).
2) Christian-like affectations long after Christ's time
Nash States:
It was only during the later Roman celebrations (after A.D. 300) of the spring festival that anything remotely connected with a "resurrection" appears. The pine tree symbolizing Attis was cut down and then carried corpse-like into the sanctuary. Later in the prolonged festival, the tree was buried while the initiates worked themselves into a frenzy that included gashing themselves with knives. The next night, the "grave" of the tree was opened and the "resurrection of Attis" was celebrated. But the language of these late sources is highly ambiguous. In truth, no clear-cut, unambiguous reference to the supposed "resurrection" of Attis appears, even in the very late literature from the fourth century after Christ. (Nash p.8)
H. Buddha
Glenn Miller,
Christian Think Tank
on the specifics of Buddha,Buddha was born of the virgin Maya. [We have already seen the radical differences here, and the data that his mom was married before his conception counts against the factuality of this. There ARE later traditions, however, that assert that she had taken vows of abstinence even during her marriage (a bit odd?), but it can be understood (so in EOR) to refer only to the time of that midsummer festival. The first and finest biography of the Buddha, written by Ashvaghosha in the 1st century, called the Buddhacarita ("acts of the Buddha") gives a rather strong indication of her non-virgin status in canto 1: "He [the king of the Shakyas] had a wife, splendid, beautiful, and steadfast, who was called the Great Maya, from her resemblance to Maya the Goddess. These two tasted of love's delights, and one day she conceived the fruit of her womb, but without any defilement, in the same way in which knowledge joined to trance bears fruit. Just before her conception she had a dream." (Buddhist Scriptures, Edward Conze,Penguin:1959.:35)D. Buddha and Krishna
Both of these figures were in the East before an during the time of Christ. They never exerted any influence in Palestine, and probably very few people knew about them. No connecting link can be shown as to how they would spread to Palestine.
11 comments:
I see. Many excellent points. Do I summarize correctly that
1. You imagine the ancient non-Christian miracle stories to be reporting actual experiences?
2. You imagine those experiences to be universal experiences, events that happen in all cultures?
A: Can I ask you then to expand on your theory? You are no doubt familiar with the ancient god Glycon. You understand He wasn't a real god. He was a trick, made up by a charlatan prophet named Alexander The False Prophet (you'd think the name would have given the game away). When Alexander made up a god, he included these features:
"Glycon was the son of the god Apollo, who ...
... came to Earth through a miraculous birth,
... was the Earthly manifestation of divinity,
... came to earth in fulfillment of divine prophecy,
... gave his chief believer the power of prophecy,
... gave believers the power to speak in tongues,
... performed miracles,
... healed the sick,
... raised the dead."
It's pretty clear from Lucian that Glycon didn't really raise the dead or heal the sick, and that Alexander didn't think he did. These were not real events, these were phony miracles Alexander made up to fool people into thinking Glycon was a real god.
For eg:
"[Chapter 24] By now he was even sending men abroad to create rumors in the different nations in regard to the oracle and to say that he made predictions, discovered fugitive slaves, detected thieves and robbers, caused treasures to be dug up, healed the sick, and in some cases had actually raised the dead.
Lucian, Alexander the False Prophet, Chapter 24"
So here's the question: Where do you imagine Alexander got the ideas of Glycon coming to earth as the son of god, according to divine prophesy, giving his believers the power to speak in tongues, healing the sick, raising the dead? These are not real events. They are lies invented by Alexander.
According to your theory, where did Alexander get the ideas in those lies?
Were they not ideas present in the culture that he copied and applied to his god Glycon?
B: Let me ask you about archetypes:
At Alexandria a commoner, whose eyes were well known to have wasted away ...fell at Vespasian's feet demanding with sobs a cure for his blindness, and imploring that the Emperor would deign to moisten his eyes and eyeballs with the spittle from his mouth.
... Vespasian .... did as the men desired him. Immediately the hand recovered its functions and daylight shone once more in the blind man's eyes. Those who were present still attest both miracles today, when there is nothing to gain by lying.
Tacitus, The Histories, 4.81
And
"1 And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth....
6 When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay,
7 And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.
Gospel of John, Chapter 9"
Is it really your theory that the Tacitus story is an archetype? I am not aware that people in all cultures experience people healing blindness by spitting on the victims eyes. I've seen the sun come up. I've never seen blindness cured with spit.
On what evidence do you explain Vespatian's miracle with an archetype.
Bino Bolumai
/ In Bino Veritas >
I see. Many excellent points. Do I summarize correctly that
1. You imagine the ancient non-Christian miracle stories to be reporting actual experiences?
AT least in type. maybe not all the particular ones that are found in the bible but I'm willing to argue that things like hat happened. (mainly with Jesus' healing).
2. You imagine those experiences to be universal experiences, events that happen in all cultures?
to some extent, that is not a radical proposition.
A: Can I ask you then to expand on your theory? You are no doubt familiar with the ancient god Glycon. You understand He wasn't a real god. He was a trick, made up by a charlatan prophet named Alexander The False Prophet (you'd think the name would have given the game away). When Alexander made up a god, he included these features:
he probably wasn't called that until latter.
"Glycon was the son of the god Apollo, who ...
... came to Earth through a miraculous birth,
... was the Earthly manifestation of divinity,
... came to earth in fulfillment of divine prophecy,
... gave his chief believer the power of prophecy,
... gave believers the power to speak in tongues,
... performed miracles,
... healed the sick,
... raised the dead."
It's pretty clear from Lucian that Glycon didn't really raise the dead or heal the sick, and that Alexander didn't think he did. These were not real events, these were phony miracles Alexander made up to fool people into thinking Glycon was a real god.
Glycon was second century, thus its very possible he was made up as a copy of Jesus. this sin ot proof of the dying/rising savior God, as I pointed out in both of pieces, the only proof for such a theory suggests that Christianity was the prototype and the pagns did the copying.
if you are using Pagan origins of the Chrsit myth
http://www.pocm.info/pagan_christs_Glycon.htm
that is a very silly site and their info is suspect. They don't understand squat about world religion.
For eg:
"[Chapter 24] By now he was even sending men abroad to create rumors in the different nations in regard to the oracle and to say that he made predictions, discovered fugitive slaves, detected thieves and robbers, caused treasures to be dug up, healed the sick, and in some cases had actually raised the dead.
Lucian, Alexander the False Prophet, Chapter 24"
So here's the question: Where do you imagine Alexander got the ideas of Glycon coming to earth as the son of god, according to divine prophesy, giving his believers the power to speak in tongues, healing the sick, raising the dead? These are not real events. They are lies invented by Alexander.
from Christainity
According to your theory, where did Alexander get the ideas in those lies?
Were they not ideas present in the culture that he copied and applied to his god Glycon?
No, they are not ideas that pre date christ. They all come from latter after the itme of Pual. When Chrsitianity began to succeed in Roman pagans began to copy it.
the Pagans of late antiquity wanted to make a single world religion and untied all myth against Christianity because they saw paganism slipping away They the featured the features of Christianity that appealed to them.
You are also ignoring what I said about arche types. did you actually read my article?
atheists have a habit of only reading a portion of an argument and just not even paying attention to what it says.
B: Let me ask you about archetypes:
At Alexandria a commoner, whose eyes were well known to have wasted away ...fell at Vespasian's feet demanding with sobs a cure for his blindness, and imploring that the Emperor would deign to moisten his eyes and eyeballs with the spittle from his mouth.
... Vespasian .... did as the men desired him. Immediately the hand recovered its functions and daylight shone once more in the blind man's eyes. Those who were present still attest both miracles today, when there is nothing to gain by lying.
Tacitus, The Histories, 4.81
And
"1 And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth....
6 When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay,
7 And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.
Gospel of John, Chapter 9"
Is it really your theory that the Tacitus story is an archetype?
not necessarily. i was talking general trends like you were presenting, the germinal idea of healing. I did not say that specific copying didn't take place, but it went the other way. they copied Christianity.
I am not aware that people in all cultures experience people healing blindness by spitting on the victims eyes. I've seen the sun come up. I've never seen blindness cured with spit.
you are probably not very well read.
On what evidence do you explain Vespatian's miracle with an archetype.
made up after the time of Paul to copy Christianity. the very site you took all that form says Glycon was second century.
here is a direct quote:
"In the middle of the 100s AD"
pagan origins of the Chrsit myth
(pretty stupid of them to say that because it contradicts their whole argument).
this is well after Christianity was encountered by the cults of Rome.
I have presented gobs of evidence the two posts I've mad on the blog showing that all the issues said to have been the materials form which Jesus was fashioned either weren't in the real myths, or were probably copies of Christianity because they were put in latter.
> No, they are not ideas that pre date christ. They all come from latter
> after the itme of Pual. When Chrsitianity began to succeed in
> Roman pagans began to copy it.
> the Pagans of late antiquity wanted to make a single world religion
> and untied all myth against Christianity because they saw paganism
> slipping away They the featured the features of Christianity that
> appealed to them.
You said:
I'll stipulate that they all had "supernatural" happenings. That need not be a thing they copied. …They all had these things in their myths because they are common arche types that we all hve in the psyche.
One of the fallacious assumptions you are making here is to think that only Hebrews could have miracles, or that God would only work in one culture.
But now your theory is that pagan miracles were NOT taken from real events, or psychic archetypes, now you think they were copied --from Christianity!.
Am I missing something, or are you changing your theory from post to post?
Perhaps you can clarify for me. Precisely what criteria do you use to identify the origin of a miracle story, to tell whether that story was copied from somewhere or whether that story was made up on the basis of a real event/ archetype?
Where did you get those criteria?
Can you please cite the specific evidence you rely on to conclude those criteria give accurate results?
> No, they are not ideas that pre date christ.
Is it really and truly your theory that ancient Greco-roman-egyptian religion did not have the concept of miracles, and gods, and heaven, and hell, and prophecy, and godmen who were the sons of the great god, and healing miracle working godmen until after Jesus? Is that really your theory?
Am I correct that if I can give you evidence of any of these religious notions / myths predating Christianity, you will change your mind and conclude that Christianity copied from paganism?
> You are also ignoring what I said about arche types. did you
> actually read my article?
I did. Several times. You have many good ideas. For example I agree the outdated dying and rising god nonsense is wrong.
> > I am not aware that people in all cultures experience people healing
> > blindness by spitting on the victims eyes. I've seen the sun come up. I've
> > never seen blindness cured with spit.
> you are probably not very well read.
Excellent. I'm delighted to be educated. Please cite and quote a few of the stories from other cultures that you have in mind here, the ones you've read about that tell about blindness being cured by spit.
> > On what evidence do you explain Vespatian's miracle with an
archetype.
> made up after the time of Paul to copy Christianity. the very site you took
> all that form says Glycon was second century.
Ok, now I'm confused again. One paragraph up you said curing blindness with spit was something you yourself have read about in all cultures – that's what 'archetype' means, right?. And now you say Vespatian's miracle was copied from John.
Am I missing something? Are you changing your story from line to line?
Bino Bolumai
/ In Bino Veritas >
> No, they are not ideas that pre date christ. They all come from latter
> after the itme of Pual. When Chrsitianity began to succeed in
> Roman pagans began to copy it.
> the Pagans of late antiquity wanted to make a single world religion
> and untied all myth against Christianity because they saw paganism
> slipping away They the featured the features of Christianity that
> appealed to them.
You said:
I'll stipulate that they all had "supernatural" happenings. That need not be a thing they copied. …They all had these things in their myths because they are common arche types that we all hve in the psyche.
the former statement is talking about specific aspects such as cross, spear in the side, blood for redemption and so on. The latter is talking about (archetypes) the general concepts apart from getting it specific enough to argue for borrowing: healing in general, redemption in general (weather connected with a cross or not).
so on the one hand the general concepts are arche types and need not be borrowed. On the other hand those accepts that so very specific they really imply borrowing are latter than the time of Paul. you understand now?
One of the fallacious assumptions you are making here is to think that only Hebrews could have miracles, or that God would only work in one culture.
But now your theory is that pagan miracles were NOT taken from real events, or psychic archetypes, now you think they were copied --from Christianity!.
No, I'm talking about your assumptions. You assume that if the bible is real only the bible would talk about healing. that's not true. the bible could be true and still not be unique in aspects of its' truth, you get that?
Am I missing something, or are you changing your theory from post to post?
no, you are missing something.
Perhaps you can clarify for me. Precisely what criteria do you use to identify the origin of a miracle story, to tell whether that story was copied from somewhere or whether that story was made up on the basis of a real event/ archetype?
you advance the copy theory, you must give criteria. If I were gonig to do that I would say the major criteria are that there must be a good reason to think there is copying, the only really good reason is if things too similar and specifically alike to not be copied. the more similar and more specific two things are the greater the chances they could no just be coincidence.
but since its' your burden of proof of pull the argument its your burden to present a set of criteria.
Where did you get those criteria?
specific? I should think its' pretty obvious that the more specific similarities are the more likely copying occurred.
Can you please cite the specific evidence you rely on to conclude those criteria give accurate results?
what criteria? Specificity? its self evident. what other criteria would you use. how dumb can you get?
you should be making the criteria anyway.
> No, they are not ideas that pre date christ.
what are we talking about?
Is it really and truly your theory that ancient Greco-roman-egyptian religion did not have the concept of miracles, and gods, and heaven, and hell, and prophecy, and godmen who were the sons of the great god, and healing miracle working godmen until after Jesus? Is that really your theory?
why can't you read? you illiterate? I documented from many scholarly books and gave bibliography how did you miss that? I said exactly what Egyptian mythology included and what it did not.
for each figure I name I show no crucifixion, no resurrection. did no virgin birth, not see that?
Am I correct that if I can give you evidence of any of these religious notions / myths predating Christianity, you will change your mind and conclude that Christianity copied from paganism?
evidence has to come schoarlship not from Jesus mythers.
You don't seem to understand what happened here. I showed that in the really scholarship about mythology none of those things are included. the places you find them are Jesus myther books. that means mythers are lying because they are not being true to real mythology. just quoting from ore of their books wont help.
> You are also ignoring what I said about arche types. did you
> actually read my article?
I did. Several times. You have many good ideas. For example I agree the outdated dying and rising god nonsense is wrong.
good but you don't seem to realize that whole Jesus myth idea was based upon those in the first place. so you are defending a theory that was is cut off form its main support. do you see that?
> > I am not aware that people in all cultures experience people healing
all cultures have some idea of the diety or gods or holy men healing.
> > blindness by spitting on the victims eyes. I've seen the sun come up. I've
> > never seen blindness cured with spit.
now that's specific. the more specific it is t he more likely it's a copy.
> you are probably not very well read.
Excellent. I'm delighted to be educated. Please cite and quote a few of the stories from other cultures that you have in mind here, the ones you've read about that tell about blindness being cured by spit.
that's not what I sid, you are confussed. I said the gernal idea of healing is in all cultures. The idea of put spit on bind eyes to make them see is real scpricic so that could be copied. but it also has to be older than the the copy.
do you nderstand that? if something is a copy is cant' be older than the thing is suppossed to be copied from?
so all the aspects that are dating to after Paul can't be copied by the Gospels see that? It has to mean the pagans copied it.
> > On what evidence do you explain Vespatian's miracle with an
archetype.
It's a copied from Christianity. It's latter than Paul. do you see what I'm saying?
> made up after the time of Paul to copy Christianity. the very site you took
> all that form says Glycon was second century.
Ok, now I'm confused again. One paragraph up you said curing blindness with spit was something you yourself have read about in all cultures – that's what 'archetype' means, right?. And now you say Vespatian's miracle was copied from John.
sorry I guess I was unclear. I didn't say that.i was peaking of healing in general.
but what source do you give? Vespasian was after the time of Paul (if it's connected Alexander the false prophet its mid second century. Vespasian himself was an older contemporary of Paul. He outlived Paul.
but we have to know to what era that story is dated.
Am I missing something? Are you changing your story from line to line?
lets be clear now
(1) geenral concepts such as healing can be found all over the wrold. its' an archetupe.
(2) specific similarities indicate copying if they are real close and a lot of them, especially if dialogue is the same.
(3) more similar the greater the chance of copying.
(4) Things that are very similar you have to be sure the pagan version pre dates the Christian era.
(5) evdience indicates none of the similarities mythers point out do pre date Christianity.
is that clear?
Lucian was a play right. Alexander the false prophet was a fictional charter in his play. He was not a real man and he never lived.
that story was intentionally made up based upon the basic idea of the Jesus story. So it is not any kind of evidence for Christian borrowing.
I suspect the story of Vespasian is the same.
see source here
WE know factually that the Gospels pre date Tacitus by over a hundred years. so there's no way that story can be copied by the gospel writers. Tacitus copied it from the Gospels.
lets be clear now
(1) general concepts such as healing can be found all over the world. its' an archetype.
(2) specific similarities indicate copying if they are real close and a lot of them, especially if dialogue is the same.
(3) more similar the greater the chance of copying.
(4) Things that are very similar you have to be sure the pagan version pre dates the Christian era.
(5) evidence indicates none of the similarities mythers point out do pre date Christianity.
is that clear?
Now I see. I didn't before.
A. I'm puzzled by #1.
a) Do you really believe our bible stories are just one more example of archetypal godmen doing magic? Then Jesus is like Osiris and Attis and Thor.
…Good to know.
b) I understand that if Aztec men and women got married and Romans men and women did too, that must have been archetype.
But if men and women in Tampa get married and so do men an women in Dallas that's certainly not archetype. That's shared culture. People in the culture share an idea, "marriage," and the specific events in Tampa and Dallas are instances of that idea being played out.
So, question: Does your theory of ancient miracles recognize that within boundaries of a culture similar events appear and reappear because they are expressions of shared cultural ideas and not because they each emerge separate and unique from some archetype?
And if in San Francisco two men get married, will you agree with me that they did not get the idea of marriage from the Archetype, they got the idea of marriage from American culture, and they adjusted that cultural idea to fit their own circumstances? So even though factual details of two events differ, the origin of the ideas fundamental to the events may still be the general culture.
B. Now that I see what you mean in general, I'm unclear what you mean by "copying" miracles, especially in #2.
I gather that to you "copying" means copying factual details. Is your theory aware that common cultural ideas played out in different circumstances may result in different factual details? A marriage in Tampa on a boat, in Dallas in a corral with horses, say. Different factual details, same fundamental purpose. Same fundamental origin.
Speaking now about healing gods in the ancient world, as you know Isis healed, Asclepius healed, etc. etc. Now when Alexander claimed Glycon healed, in the second century, how does your theory imagine Alexander came up with the idea of having his god heal people? Do you think Alexander came up with his lie from some archetype, or was there a general cultural idea of gods healing, and Alexander invented Glycon's healing power based on that?
According to your theory, do the stories about of the Son of God and a mortal woman, come to earth, healing, miracle working, do as I say and you'll have a happy eternal life after death god Jesus, and the stories about of the Son of God and a mortal woman, come to earth, healing, miracle working, do as I say and you'll have a happy eternal life after death god Dionysus, do those stories reflect any shared cultural ideas?
C. I'm interested in your idea that Tacitus and Alexander the FP copied from our gospels. On what factual basis do you believe Tacitus or A the FP had ever heard of our Gospel of John?
I'm not aware of any Christian mentioning John until well into the 2d century. Are you?
Bino Bolumai
/ In Bino Veritas >
lets be clear now
(1) general concepts such as healing can be found all over the world. its' an archetype.
(2) specific similarities indicate copying if they are real close and a lot of them, especially if dialogue is the same.
(3) more similar the greater the chance of copying.
(4) Things that are very similar you have to be sure the pagan version pre dates the Christian era.
(5) evidence indicates none of the similarities mythers point out do pre date Christianity.
is that clear?
Now I see. I didn't before.
sorry I didn't make it clear before.
A. I'm puzzled by #1.
a) Do you really believe our bible stories are just one more example of archetypal godmen doing magic? Then Jesus is like Osiris and Attis and Thor.
Osiris and Attis didn't do any healing. Attis didn't do much of anything except get his pecker whacked off (I'm serious).
I think the general idea of a healing redeeming God figure is an archtype. The difference is Jesus actually was a felsh and blood historical person. Two possiblities:
(1) eiteher he really did the things claimed, in which case he's the embodyment of the arthce type and that indicates divine: because he's the one real example of all the metaphors (that's called hte "dress rehursel theory, the pagan myths were the rehursal and jesus was the real thing).
Or
(2) the arche typical concepts were stuck on to the memory of the real guy for some reason (such as he was so cool people built him up into something bigger than life). You can decide which you accept. I choose the former and that is based upon my own current experinces of Christ in my own life.
…Good to know.
b) I understand that if Aztec men and women got married and Romans men and women did too, that must have been archetype.
Marriage per se is not an arche type. it's just a cultural construct. It's in all cultures becasue humans cohabiting is logical and universal given our biological needs and the need to give he offspring better chances of survival. The idea of sanctifying it with some cultural ritual may be arche typical it's probably just so ancient that the Asians had it before they crossed the bearing straights.
But if men and women in Tampa get married and so do men an women in Dallas that's certainly not archetype. That's shared culture. People in the culture share an idea, "marriage," and the specific events in Tampa and Dallas are instances of that idea being played out.
Yes but that doesn't they copied each other cultures. It means the idea of marriage began long ago when humans weren't so scattered over the planet.
So, question: Does your theory of ancient miracles recognize that within boundaries of a culture similar events appear and reappear because they are expressions of shared cultural ideas and not because they each emerge separate and unique from some archetype?
yes but shared cultural ideas are not copying in the Jesus myther sense. you have to learn what these guys are saying about the Gospel story. They are not saying there happen to be some kind of similarities for cultural reasons. they are saying that the Gospel authored copied specific things that pagan gods do because they were too stupid to "invent" their own story line.
Besides they don't take into account that none of the figures they use in the dying-rising savior god argument were popular in the middle east. They don't take into account that fiures they pick out such as Osiris were not even the stars of their cults by the time of Christ. They don't take into account that it would very unlikely for Jewish authors to pattern consciously after pagans.
unconscious influence or cross fertilization doesn't disprove the deity of Christ or the inspired nature of the bible. As per the dress rehearsal theory it doesn't disprove that Jesus actually did the things that these other "gods" are said to have done.
And if in San Francisco two men get married, will you agree with me that they did not get the idea of marriage from the Archetype, they got the idea of marriage from American culture, and they adjusted that cultural idea to fit their own circumstances? So even though factual details of two events differ, the origin of the ideas fundamental to the events may still be the general culture.
Not when they are so specific as dying on a cross to forgive sins and rising from the dead.
you don't have to turn to pagan mythology to account for that. all of those elements are in the OT or Hebrew history.
B. Now that I see what you mean in general, I'm unclear what you mean by "copying" miracles, especially in #2.
what I just said. The Jesus story stuff, virgin birth, dying on cross to atone for sins, rising from dead, empty tomb.
I gather that to you "copying" means copying factual details. Is your theory aware that common cultural ideas played out in different circumstances may result in different factual details?
bs. The more similar the more likely copying took place. that is merely logical. Give me an example of anything you are talking about (not marriage that's not an example for reasons explained above).
A marriage in Tampa on a boat, in Dallas in a corral with horses, say. Different factual details, same fundamental purpose. Same fundamental origin.
Marriage has been part of human culture for a very long time.It goes back the dawn of human cultural. It pre dates the journey across the ice bridge. It's not copying per se because when it began there was closer to being just one culture.
Speaking now about healing gods in the ancient world, as you know Isis healed, Asclepius healed, etc. etc.
Isis didn't walk around in society as a felsh and blood person healing. She didn't go up to cripples and go "take up your bed as walk."
so this falls under he category of arche type because it's very general and other than the aspect of healing itself there's nothing to suggest one influence the other.
Now when Alexander claimed Glycon healed, in the second century, how does your theory imagine Alexander came up with the idea of having his god heal people? Do you think Alexander came up with his lie from some archetype, or was there a general cultural idea of gods healing, and Alexander invented Glycon's healing power based on that?
did you not read my post? did you not understand what I said? Alexander and Glycon were fictional characters. they wade up by Lucian the play write. they never existed and they were probably patterned after Paul and Jesus. Do you get what I"m saying? Jesus was the pattern for Glycon. It was an intentional direct copy. That cannot be a proof that the Jesus story was copied form pagan gods.
According to your theory, do the stories about of the Son of God and a mortal woman, come to earth, healing, miracle working, do as I say and you'll have a happy eternal life after death god Jesus, and the stories about of the Son of God and a mortal woman, come to earth, healing, miracle working, do as I say and you'll have a happy eternal life after death god Dionysus, do those stories reflect any shared cultural ideas?
the whole point of my original post (which apparently you didn't erad) was to show that these things are not in real mythology.they have been read in by Jesus mythers. Glycon is not any kind of proof of the Gsopel authros coypin pagans. it's a proof of pagans copying the gospels.
I have proved that the original pagan mythology did not have these dying rising savior gods or virgin births. To the extent that pagans have anything resembling it there's good evidence that they copied Christianity.
C. I'm interested in your idea that Tacitus and Alexander the FP copied from our gospels. On what factual basis do you believe Tacitus or A the FP had ever heard of our Gospel of John?
Alexander never lived as a human in history. He was a fictional character made up by Lucian. Lucian lived in the second century. So he's clearly patterned after Jesus because there are not examples of such people in pagan myth before that.
I'm still reseraaching the Tacitus story. But the kicker is Vespacian lived after the events that were suppossed to have taken place in the Gospels. I can prove that the Gospel stories circulated in written form as early as AD 50. That would pre date the time in which Vespasian healed the guy. That event had to take place around AD 60's or 70s.
It wasn't written until the 2nd century and since it is so like the episode in the Gospels which was written at least by AD 80 but probably before AD 50, then that's a good reason to assume that Tacitus or his source copied the Gospels.
I'm not aware of any Christian mentioning John until well into the 2d century. Are you?
yes. The Gospel of John was know factually was written before 135 AD. This is because of the John Ryland's fragment which date to that year. You have allow travel and copy time so that puts the writing of John in the 90s.
As for as authorship there were writers in the second century that attributed it to John. I support the Elder John theory but that works too.
Clarification. My arguments on archetype are argued conditionally.
Meaning, if you can show similarities in a general sort of way they could be either coincidence, or archetypes. In either case it does not count as evidence against the truth claims of the Bible.
It's only when accounts are so very similar in many ways that it is clear there have been some form of influence that they could even theoretically impend upon the truth claims of Christianity.
Even in that case most of the time the evidence demonstrates the borrowing the other way (pagans copied Christians).
I am not opposed to any notion that cultural influences from outside Hebrew culture influenced ideas in the Bible. I think that sort of thing happens a lot. But the mythers specifically beileve that Jesus did not exist as a man in history. They specifically think that the Jesus story was made up based upon the dying rising savior Gods.
The fact that the figures they point to do not show such great similarities in real mythlogy (only in the account the Jesus mythers themselves give)proves that their hypothesis is false.
Meaning, if you can show similarities in a general sort of way they could
be either coincidence, or archetypes. In either case it does not count as
evidence against the truth claims of the Bible.
It's only when accounts are so very similar in many ways that it is clear
there have been some form of influence that they could even theoretically
impend upon the truth claims of Christianity.
Even in that case most of the time the evidence demonstrates the
borrowing the other way (pagans copied Christians).
I acknowledge this is internally consistent. But it seems to me not to explain all the evidence. Specifically it seems not to explain the many pagan – pagan similarities.
The Christian defense against the mythers' Jesus-is-Horus-fact-for-fact nonsense is to look at the old texts and discover that Jesus isn't Horus fact for fact. Fine. We agree. You may stop refuting the point.
But neither is Osiris Horus. Nor is Isis Kore, or Glycon Dionysus, etc., pair after pair. None of the ancient gods had myths with identical facts. So if one applies the Jesus-isn't-Horus analysis to all the other possible pairs of ancient gods, the analysis would lead one to conclude each and every ancient god was new and unique, a thing unto himself.
This seems to me not believable. Much more believable is the idea that, like our idea of marriage, ancient Mediterranean culture had the general ideas of gods, demons, godmen, miracles, heaven, hell, salvation, and that different people in different places at different times applied those ideas to their own circumstances. The myths they made up had different facts, but facts built around the same core ideas.
So we understand Dionysus as the Thracian version of a pagan god, and Osiris as an Egyptian version. Etc. etc. And Jesus as the Judean/ Syrian version.
This theory has the virtue of explaining all the evidence, with similar criteria applied in similar circumstances.
A. I'm puzzled by #1.
a) Do you really believe our bible stories are just one more example of archetypal godmen doing magic? Then Jesus is like Osiris and Attis and Thor
> Osiris and Attis didn't do any healing. Attis didn't do much of
> anything except get his pecker whacked off (I'm serious). .
As you should be. I'm sure Attis found it serious himself.
> I think the general idea of a healing redeeming God figure is an
> archtype. The difference is Jesus actually was a felsh and blood
> historical person. Two possiblities:
> (1) eiteher he really did the things claimed, in which case he's the
> embodyment of the arthce type and that indicates divine: because
> he's the one real example of all the metaphors (that's called hte
> "dress rehursel theory, the pagan myths were the rehursal and
> jesus was the real thing).
> Or
> (2) the arche typical concepts were stuck on to the memory of the
> real guy for some reason (such as he was so cool people built him
> up into something bigger than life). You can decide which you
> accept. I choose the former and that is based upon my own current
> experinces of Christ in my own life.
Yes, exactly. We have identified our point of disagreement. I believe in what is possible given facts and evidence. You believe in magic.
But if men and women in Tampa get married and so do men an women in Dallas that's certainly not archetype. That's shared culture. People in the culture share an idea, "marriage," and the specific events in Tampa and Dallas are instances of that idea being played out.
> Yes but that doesn't they copied each other cultures. It means the
> idea of marriage began long ago when humans weren't so scattered
> over the planet.
Well Florida sub-culture is quite different from Texas sub-culture, but they're both parts of the same country, and the idea of marriage spreads across the entire country, across the greater culture.
The Roman empire was one country, with many sub-cultures that shared larger cultural ideas. Gods, miracles, healings, heaven, hell being some.
So, question: Does your theory of ancient miracles recognize that within boundaries of a culture similar events appear and reappear because they are expressions of shared cultural ideas and not because they each emerge separate and unique from some archetype?
> yes but shared cultural ideas are not copying in the Jesus myther
> sense. you have to learn what these guys are saying about the
> Gospel story. They are not saying there happen to be some kind of
> similarities for cultural reasons. they are saying that the Gospel
> authored copied specific things that pagan gods do because they
> were too stupid to "invent" their own story line.
> Besides they don't take into account that none of the figures they
> use in the dying-rising savior god argument were popular in the
> middle east. They don't take into account that fiures they pick out
> such as Osiris were not even the stars of their cults by the time of
> Christ. They don't take into account that it would very unlikely for
> Jewish authors to pattern consciously after pagans.
Yes, Jesus is not Osiris fact for fact. You're refuting a position I am not arguing.
And if in San Francisco two men get married, will you agree with me that they did not get the idea of marriage from the Archetype, they got the idea of marriage from American culture, and they adjusted that cultural idea to fit their own circumstances? So even though factual details of two events differ, the origin of the ideas fundamental to the events may still be the general culture.
> Not when they are so specific as dying on a cross to forgive sins
> and rising from the dead.
We don't know the theologies of the mysteries were, so I don't know about forgiving sins. Raising the dead seems to have been a cultural convention. I agree about dying on the cross. And a mother named Mary, and a father named Joseph, and 12 disciples, etc. etc. etc. But, again, every ancient myth was different in its details from every other ancient myth. Only Dionysus was sewed up in Zeus' thigh. Only Magna Mater came to Rome as a rock. They are all unique.
So your criteria that some uniqueness in circumstantial detail proves the story of the magic miracle working immortal son of god proves He is different from all the other magic miracle working immortal sons of god seems to me unreasonable.
> you don't have to turn to pagan mythology to account for that. all of
> those elements are in the OT or Hebrew history.
Yes. Judaism was just another ancient religion, confluent, except in the extremity of its tribal racism, with other ancient religions. Josephus says somewhere that the priests allowed pagans to sacrific for healing in the temple in Jerusalem, so the ancient Jews and pagans saw this confluence themselves.
B. Now that I see what you mean in general, I'm unclear what you mean by "copying" miracles, especially in #2.
> what I just said. The Jesus story stuff, virgin birth, dying on cross to
> atone for sins, rising from dead, empty tomb.
I gather that to you "copying" means copying factual details. Is your theory aware that common cultural ideas played out in different circumstances may result in different factual details?
> bs. The more similar the more likely copying took place. that is
> merely logical. Give me an example of anything you are talking
> about (not marriage that's not an example for reasons explained
> above).
Gods were immortal beings who lived in the sky, came to earth, had magic powers, cared about people, and did things to help or hurt them. Gods healed the sick, walked on water, spoke to people in dreams, commanded demons, and occasionally brought a better life after death.
A marriage in Tampa on a boat, in Dallas in a corral with horses, say. Different factual details, same fundamental purpose. Same fundamental origin.
> Marriage has been part of human culture for a very long time.It goes
> back the dawn of human cultural. It pre dates the journey across the
> ice bridge. It's not copying per se because when it began there was
> closer to being just one culture.
Exactly. But the fact the wedding in Tampa is on a boat and the wedding in Dallas was in a corral – too different for fact-by-fact copying; Jesus is not Horus – does not prevent either of us from seeing that each wedding was a specific expression of general cultural ideas.
Speaking now about healing gods in the ancient world, as you know Isis healed, Asclepius healed, etc. etc.
> Isis didn't walk around in society as a felsh and blood person
> healing. She didn't go up to cripples and go "take up your bed as
> walk."
As an aside, take up your bed and walk was a cultural convention understood to prove the power of the magic man's spell:
"I was still a young lad, about fourteen years old, when someone came and told my father that Midas the vine-dresser, ordinarily a strong and industrious servant, had been bitten by a viper toward midday and was lying down, with his leg already in a state of mortification….Not to make a long story of it, the Babylonian came and BROUGHT MIDAS BACK TO LIFE, driving the poison out of his body by a spell, and also binding upon his foot a fragment which he broke from the tombstone of a dead
"Perhaps this is nothing out of the common : although MIDAS HIMSELF PICKED UP THE LITTER ON WHICH HE HAD BEEN CARRIED AND WENT OF TO THE FARM, SO POTENT WAS THE SPELL AND THE FRAGMENT OF THE TOMBSTONE.
Lucian, Lover of Lies, Chapter 12 "
> so this falls under he category of arche type because it's very
> general and other than the aspect of healing itself there's nothing to
> suggest one influence the other.
Again, recourse to circumstantial factual details misses the underlying ancient theology: gods had the power to heal.
> Now when Alexander claimed Glycon healed, in the second century, how
does your theory imagine Alexander came up with the idea of having his god heal people? Do you think Alexander came up with his lie from some archetype, or was there a general cultural idea of gods healing, and Alexander invented Glycon's healing power based on that?
> did you not read my post? did you not understand what I said?
> Alexander and Glycon were fictional characters. they wade up by
> Lucian the play write. they never existed and they were probably
> patterned after Paul and Jesus. Do you get what I"m saying? Jesus
> was the pattern for Glycon. It was an intentional direct copy. That
> cannot be a proof that the Jesus story was copied form pagan gods.
Yes I understood what you said. I didn't want to be boorish by pointlessly correcting your facts. Lucian did write some dialogues, but he was not a playwright. He did not write plays. He did not have plays produced. Alexandros ho Pseudomantis is not a play. It is not to my reading, fiction, or intended to be. Further you can today go online and buy ancient Paphligonian coins with a snake god with a human head and the word 'glykon' stamped on them. Alexander was a real man. Glycon was a "real" god.
The shortcoming of your Glycon copying theory seems to me it's implausibility. As you correctly point out Jesus is not Horus because the circumstantial facts of their myths differ. If that's true about Jesus and Horus it must also be true about Glycon and Jesus. The circumstantial facts differ. The underlying theologies – miracles, powers, prophesies, healings, raising the dead – do not differ.
And you have the further problem that Christians were then reviled as atheists – by Alexander. Lucian says so, and Lucian was there himself, in Abnoteichus, at Glycon's oracle.
According to your theory, do the stories about of the Son of God and a mortal woman, come to earth, healing, miracle working, do as I say and you'll have a happy eternal life after death god Jesus, and the stories about of the Son of God and a mortal woman, come to earth, healing, miracle working, do as I say and you'll have a happy eternal life after death god Dionysus, do those stories reflect any shared cultural ideas?
C. I'm interested in your idea that Tacitus and Alexander the FP copied from our gospels. On what factual basis do you believe Tacitus or A the FP had ever heard of our Gospel of John?
> Alexander never lived as a human in history. He was a fictional
> character made up by Lucian. Lucian lived in the second century.
> So he's clearly patterned after Jesus because there are not
> examples of such people in pagan myth before that.
> I'm still reseraaching the Tacitus story. But the kicker is Vespacian
> lived after the events that were suppossed to have taken place in
> the Gospels. I can prove that the Gospel stories circulated in written
> form as early as AD 50. That would pre date the time in which
> Vespasian healed the guy. That event had to take place around AD
> 60's or 70s.
> It wasn't written until the 2nd century and since it is so like the
> episode in the Gospels which was written at least by AD 80 but
> probably before AD 50, then that's a good reason to assume that
> Tacitus or his source copied the Gospels.
Yes I know about fanciful early dates for our gospels. They strike me as unconvincing. But as to the Tacitus account your problem is greater still. You would need to show not just that the gospel had been written, but that Tacitus might have known about it, and had some reason to copy from it.
The facts as I know them are that not only is there no evidence Tacitus knew our gospels, there's no evidence in the early 1st century that any Christian knew it. Paul doesn't mention it. Ignatius doesn't mention it. 1 Clement doesn't mention it. No one mention it until well into the 2d century.
Then you have the further improbability that Tacitus, who somewhere sneers at the Jews addiction to superstition, would copy a legend from a Jewish splinter sect. A sect whose people were just then apparently being killed for their superstitions. It's just improbable on its face, like Billy Graham lifting a miracle from the Book of Mormon.
I'm not aware of any Christian mentioning John until well into the 2d century. Are you?
> yes. The Gospel of John was know factually was written before 135
> AD. This is because of the John Ryland's fragment which date to
> that year. You have allow travel and copy time so that puts the
> writing of John in the 90s.
I'm afraid I can't agree. The Colin Roberts date of P52 was not "before 135" it was "first half of the 2d century" – and it is at any rate an exercise not of science but of imaginative theology, as a quick read of the paper itself will show:
http://ia311543.us.archive.org/3/items/MN41504ucmf_0/MN41504ucmf_0.pdf
and as the Harvard Theological Review finally admitted in 2005: The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayIssue?jid=HTR&volumeId=98&issueId=01
> As for as authorship there were writers in the second century that
> attributed it to John. I support the Elder John theory but that works
too.,
My quibble wasn't authorship, it was early attestation. There is none. Therefore that Tacitus should have had it as his source is unbelievable.
Bino Bolumai
/ In Bino Veritas >
this is totally huge. I'm going to answer it in the main blog spot as a new post. Then I'm going to do one more Myther piece adn then I'm done with this topic for a while.
Post a Comment