Are you that kid from YouTube?

Crap, you mentioned it right in the first post.
Relax, though, bub. We're not all versed in mythicism.

Kabane52,

    Please do not repost the same question in a new thread because you haven't gotten a response in a time frame acceptable to you. Not everyone here is a Jesus Mythicist expert and reposting your question is not going to get it answered any faster. I promise you there are members who will respond in this forum.

If you continue to repost the same thing over and over you will be considered a spammer and you will be banned.

Thanks

 

 

The two threads are substantially the same.  Keep it to one thread so your conversation doesn't become diluted.  Further, we merge threads that are substantially the same.  Just play by the forum rules.

Mythicism was not abandoned in the 19th century.  It's been a continuing part of scholarship for two hundred years since the establishment of the historical-critical method and the establish of many redaktiongeschichte schule.  Additionally, most of scholarship has always been oriented away from secularism.  Especially after the turn of the 20th century.  The two historical Jesus quests (1st one starting in the early 18th century and ending with Schweitzer in 1911, 2nd one following Kasemann's lecture and article establishing additional traditions of his teacher and colleague Bultmann and ending with Robinson's evaluation of the quest in the same frame of mind of Schweitzer who categorized the quest prior to his book) established many methods which now are invalid and have been shown to be flawed for decades now.  This is in part due to much better dating techniques, new archaeological finds and additional advancements in the fields of sociology, anthropology and archeology (among other fields).  There is no modern historical-critical evaluation and refutation of the mythicist position as it stands today (put forth by Price, Carrier, Thompson and Doherty).  

 Any academic publisher within the last ten years which has published on Mithraism.  Why don't you start there, and after you've read those books, you and I will be on the same level.

 

No it was not.  Your opinions on scholarship are naive at best. 

 And all of these authors have responded to Holding (which is not a historian or a scholar but rather an apologist who flings insults instead of evidence).  Holding has yet to respond to any of their refutations.  All of which can be viewed in their recent books and publications in peer reviewed journals.  That is more to say then your Holding source, which is neither peer reviewed nor has he ever been published.  Would you like to present a good source or would you prefer to present false information that historians pay no credence too?  (All four of the scholars I presented by the way are credentialed - Holding is not)

 

Over 100 articles in peer reviewed journals and he is the editor of a scholarly monograph.  Again...what has Holding done besides fling insults and criticize his betters?  

NEXT! 

Mithra was born of a rock, not a virgin.

 

http://www.well.com/user/davidu/mithras.html

 

That link is not an apologetics website, and it is written by a credentialed scholar, but it shows some evidence that Mithra was born of a rock. Mithra never died, he killed a bull, but this is only in Roman Mithraism, which postdates Christianity. We know very, very little about Iranian Mithraism. 

Exactly. The parallels are only in Roman Mithraism (not Zoroastrian), and even there they are pretty weak. Tell me, in Zoroastrian Mithraism, what evidence is there that the followers thought that Mithra was born of a virgin?

 

Ah, good. So Rook hasn't abandoned the argument after all. We are discussing the virgin birth. So, Rook, what evidence that predates Christianity demonstrates that in Zoroastrian tradition, Mithra was thought to be born of a virgin? 

You still haven't given me your shred of evidence yet.

Works like Heidel's and Pritchard's note parallels but do not endorse any sort of "borrowing" thesis; in fact Heidel says that Genesis did NOT depend on Babylon's material. Nabarz is an occultist, not a religious scholar. Clauss does not support your case. Patella is a scholar but his work is considered fringe: http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/5409_5703.pdf and note that it speaks of general concept correspondence, not specifics like you want. Could you cite specifics?

This is an interesting exchange. I see in one place where Rook criticizes J.P. Holding because he's "only an apologist and knows how to fling insults." Then I read about a dozen ad hominems directed toward Kabane including Rook telling Kabane (a 13-year-old kid!) that he's a "pr**k" and to go F*** himself.

 Rook, if you did YOUR research and "read some books" on the law you'd know you could be brought up on charges for this -- sexually harrassing a minor -- whether ignorant or not, it's a tortious offense. At the very least you should be ashamed. But I guess atheists have no reason to be ashamed of anything.

 All he's asking you to do is cite some evidence and you're reply is that your "job" keeps you way too busy and that you are too smart to inform a 13-year-old with some valid questions. It doesn't help either your case or your credibility.

Then you pass off not being able to cite an example by telling him to "go read some books." If Kabane is 13-years-old and can think like this, then he obviously has read some books. I wnat to see the discussion develop and see where Kabane will be at in 7 years or so.

He's not a historian yet -- and neither are you since you have no credentials by which to call yourself that -- but his father is a professor of history -- or so I heard? But I predict Kabane will probably have his PhD while you'll still be caliming to be a historian with no credentials.

 Do you think the rest of the world can't see this for what it is?

 BTW: I saw in one place where you called Holding a fraud. At least Holding does have an M.A. in library science which makes him a credible researcher -- and you have your degree in ???

For the record, I have degree in Psychology and English literature and am a certified teacher of English. So I do have some formal training in social sciences and literary analysis. But it's only a B.A. and I don't claim to be someone that I am not.

What you have proven is that you are able to find lots of books that support your atheistic longings. But you haven't done a lot of serious thinking or writing on your own. You aren't published. I've been reading for a year now that you are "writing a book." That should be a great laugh when it's finished.

 Essentially, you are a parrot. There hasn't been any NEW Higher Criticism in the past 150 years. All of the refutations of Higher Criticism that were done more than 50 years ago still stand.

Apparently, this is nothing more than an attempt to attack me without providing any more insight to the debate.  Once more, because this thread seems to be hijacked, I will repost this for kabane or anybody else.  Please keep in mind that Kabane has been citing things that he has apparently not read, as I've shown below.  I've cited near forty sources above and all of them should be considered.  I have and will continue to be patient and wait for a response.  Note how I call him out below:

 

I would say that you are either misreading Heidel or you are pulling that conclusion from somewhere else. Can you please cite me where Heidel says that Genesis did not borrow from Gilgemesh? I can't seem to find that in my copy.

Further, the works are supplemental. They don't all have to support my opinion individually, as many of the works I mention utilize the manuscripts and provide adequate and up-to-date information regarding the borrowing of tropes and ideas in older manuscripts.

I'll retract Nabarz if you agree to retract J.P. Holding.

You say that Patella is fringe, but I find that irrelevant. Why would it matter if his work is fringe or not, especially when the reviewer (which you posted) stated that "Happily, the overall thesis of this book is at the very least plausible." (p. 2) You say it fails with specifics, but that makes me wonder if you even read the article at length or perhaps you just skimmed it, as the particulars Patella is missing are not at all detrimental to his case in the least. This is actually backed up BY the review, "It is significant that the problematic details are not specific to Patella’s book but rather an issue for Markan scholarship as a whole." (emphasis mine, p. 3)

In this, I wholeheartedly agree with the reviewer (James G. Crossley), that there are lots of gaps in Markan scholarship, and where Crossley admits there are gaps, also suggests many scholars interpret too much into the book and claim Mark says what it really doesn't. This is where the somewhat new (last ten years) scholarship of Dennis McDonald come into play, where we see many instances in the New Testament, but especially that in Mark where the Homeric epics are used as a formation of many key events, including the boy who tosses the mantle off his back before running off naked away from Jesus, and the three women who visit the tomb of Jesus at the end of the narrative to name a few; as well as the calling of Judas to the Sanhedrin to ask him to identify Jesus (when many of their ilk would have known who Jesus already was, being that he had rebuked a number of them and overthrew the tables of the money changers outside their front doors!)

You say Clauss does not agree with me...have you read the book or are you just guessing? "Moreover, the similarities between the two religions adduced above must have encouraged Mithraists in particular to become Christians. They had no need in their new faith to give up the ritual meal, their Sun-imagery, or even their candles, incense and bells. Some elements of Mithraism may well have been carried oer into Christianity, which partly explains why even in the sixth century the Church authorities had to struggle against those stuli homines, those simply clowns, who continued on the very church-steps to do obeisance to the Sun early in the morning, as they always had done, and pray to him." (p. 172)

I also agree with Clauss when he says, "Most of the parallels between Mithraism and Christianity are part of the common currency of all mystery cults or can be traced back to common origins in the Greco-oriental culture of the Hellenistic world." (p. 168) This sets up my point nicely, in fact, that when you have mutualy similar religions fighting to save souls, ideas will be passed between the two when converts from one go to another and gain places of power in that community. This cannot be denied, and this is why Clauss admits this on page 172 (quoted above). The similarities are there, and exist. But they had to come from somewhere, and if Clauss even admits that they are similar because they came from earlier traditions in Greco-oriental (ancient near eastern Hellenistic) culture they could not be from events that actually happened in 30-33 CE.

When I suggest you go to a library and read the books I suggest you do so, otherwise you only show yourself to be foolish when somebody who actually has read them shows that you have not.

 

Well most of the authors aren't citing their opinions, they cite other sources and things of evidence.  Thats how evidence works.  If you refuse to research things for yourself, then as you said, the discussion is over.  We can't (in some cases unfortunately) make you read.

Im the type of person (I think Rook is like this but I can't speak for him) that likes to show people how to find the answers.  Part of the reason for me on this is im lazy and don't feel like retyping the same shit and spoon feeding other people who are even lazier than I am to do the research.  

 

From Kabane52's original post - "Do you know who Beddru is? He is made up."

Actually, "Beddru" is a typo that should read Beddou.

It's fully explained in this article "Beddru is Beddou is Buddha"
http://www.truthbeknown.com/beddru.html

 The alleged similiarities were added to the pagan myths centuries later. But even if there were certain similarities, it doesn't disprove Christianity. God often speaks first through myth, then history. Some argue that God used certain myths to prepare the world for the coming of Christ. This is why the Greeks took so easily to the Christian message, because they were already formed for Christianity to some extent. God is no dummy. He prepared the Greeks for Christianity long before it even came. I think it depends on how you look and interpret history. But the basic fallacy of the pagan-parallel hypothesis, rests on the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (false cause). It is fallacious to assume one cause, when there could have been another cause. Just because A comes before B, it does not mean A is the cause of B.  Just because myths came before Christianity, it does not mean the myths are the cause of Christianity.The pagan-parallel proponents tend to view history as chaotic. Others as cyclical, and yet others, such as myself, as linear. I believe God uses history for His purposes. Atheists don't believe there is any divine nature to history, but that it is meraly chaotic and going no where. I don't agree with that position. History is the sands of time with God's foot prints.

Apotheon, do you not see that citing credentials in this case is an appeal to authority? This is one of the fundamental differences between real science and real research, and apologetics. It doesn't matter if Strobel wins Miss America and the Kentucky Derby; if his arguments rely on logical fallacies and falsehoods, they will be successfully debunked (and they have been). The status of the person shouldn't bear on honest criticism of their ideas. Charles Darwin, for instance, was a real scientist who derived his conclusions from the evidence, and offered predictions to test his theories. He could have been wrong, but he wasn't. He was never wringing his hands with impish glee, saying, "Let's see how they handle it when I say we're related to apes!" That's where the evidence lead, and he was compelled to follow it even if it was injurious to a common view of the world. Now then, biologists don't recognize his theory because they've decided they like the cut of his jib. They didn't decide at some point to believe anything he says, whether it's founded or not. If a secret diary was discovered in which Darwin confessed his unfounded belief in geocentric theory, it wouldn't elevate that theory because of his status in other fields (nor would it invalidate his other theories in those fields). The apologist's role is the antipode of an honest researcher. They begin with a conclusion, and will radically contort the available evidence until it supports their claims.

 The appeal to authority fallacy is only commited when one appeals to unqualified authority. I didn't do that. I appealed to first-rate historians. Strobel merely interviewed them. And contrary to Rooks allagation, I didn't lie either. Everything is well documented in his book.

Actually for me it does disprove Christianity.  Since paganism was added to X-ianity. Originally it was another mystery cult, as well as another Gnostic cult and so on.  There were many different sects of Christianity all trying to overpower each other and be dominate long before the pagan birth story of Christ was written.  Then Rome some how overpower all them and we ended up with Roman Christianity being dominate until the Reformation.  Then we ended up with Lutheran, Anglican, and other forms of Christianity.This in not only in your history books, but Bob Price, John Shelby Spong, Tom Harpur, Karen Armstrong, and many others speak about it, not just Acharya.

 

Rook - on another thread I asked for some names of professional historians (other than Price) who hold some form of the Jesus Myth position. Your name was mentioned, but when I asked about your qualifications no-one answered.

 

Are you a professional historian? Where did you do your degrees? Are you in a teaching or research position at an accredited institution of higher learning?

 

Thanks in advance.

Rook,

Do you honestly think that this kind of attitude is becoming of an aspiring professional historian?  I'm scratching my head here trying to understand why it is that every person who challenges you gets the same thing--arrogance, condescension, belittling, etc. etc.  Is it merely a debate tactic you use to try to intimidate people or do you really believe this crap?  It certainly doesn't make you look smarter.  I'm sure it lowers everyone's level of respect for you.  If you're here to inform and convince people of a certain point of view, how about a little humility on your part?  I'm sure you'll flame at me too, but I just had to get that off my chest.

I'm the first person to admit I have personality quirks, but only when it comes to idiots. If you REFUSE to go back one page and read what I've written, don't expect me to treat you with respect. Respect should be earned, not given freely. If you are too much of a lazy asshole to read something I've written, and then act as if I've never written it in the first place, I'm going to treat you like a lazy asshole. If you want me to treat you with respect and humility, show some.

Now, so you don't get all in a tuss, I'm not attacking you for bringing this up, and if my language is that which offends you, I'm sorry, but I prefer blunt honesty to side-stepping. Part of that means calling somebody out on their stupidity. And Stringer was being stupid. Sorry, but the truth hurts.  But, just look at my response to Occam, note how he asked a question respectfully, and I answered in kind.  There are hundreds of commends of mine that are answered in a similar fashion.  But those are to people who do not act like complete morons when talking to me.  Perhaps if somebody wants to challenge me, they read up on what I've said elsewhere so I don't have to act like they were too lazy to read my blog, or go back a single damn page.

 

Rook,

Are you here as a human index, merely to point us to books we could look up via google? Or are you here advertising yourself as someone knowledgeable about history and who can "fix" our theism?

If you think that you are well informed about the Mithra parallels with Jesus, surely you are able to direct us yourself to the *original* ancient texts/relics or whatever and their dates that demonstrate these parallels. Not just a random "Go and read these books", but a specific "This manuscript contains the following reference, and is dated at year x".

The specific references I've seen regarding Mithraism parallels with Christianity specifically post-date Christian events. I am very interested to be shown the specific ancient references that show the parallels, and you are one that claims to support that view. Are you a member of RRS for dialogue with us, or just to serve as our personal librarian who points us to a particular shelf?

If I wanted to tell you that I think the axiological argument for God's existence is persuasive here, I would not just point you to a book. I would present you with the argument and the support for its premises myself. I have done as much, just as recently in a thread arguing that Hitler was not a Christian. I did not just supply my contention, but included direct quotes to establish my case, and also went direct to the source to show quotes as to why the criticisms were false. This is what we want - the specific evidences that show parallels. Do you know them and can you tell us, or don't you?

Your post makes no sense. I can only assume you're employing sarcasm. Which, if is the case, shows you missed the point of my post. Stating a proposition, such as "The parallels in Mithraism with Jesus predate the story of Jesus" mean very little unless demonstrated. Just making a proposition is easy. Justifying it is a lot harder. And you won't persuade anyone by just saying something is the case.  You won't "fix" anything.

You're wrong on all accounts.  You have yet to address my needs to accept your position.  By being honest, I am not in any way giving credibility to Christianity - Jesus could still be a myth without somebody like you or Acharya OVERSTATING your position.  By overstating our position, you are HURTING us and making mythicism look like a Dan Brown novel, and I won't stand for your sort of incredulous tom foolery with the facts.  

My stance on mythicism is a historically credible one - not some backwater attempt by conspiracists.  There are literally HUNDREDS of books one has to read on the subject and other subjects to even attempt to understand the situation.  Do you have any idea of the political or cultural situation of the Hellejnistic age?  Did you know that there wasn't one "broad" hellenism, but in fact thousands of varying different types of assimilation and acculturation happening, specifically at a very personal level and not a race or general level.  You can't just say "Krishna inspired Jesus" and not expect any sort of academic inquiry!   There are very important socio-cultural facts that MUST be established, and you haven't provided a single instance of any of them.

 So there are similarities between Krishna and Jesus - so what?  There were similarities to Native Americans and Celtic tribal Gods and rituals as well - are you going to suggest they influenced each other too?  Course not, similarity does not imply influence - one must prove it anthropologically, sociologically, archaeologically and textually - and by textually you'd have to show exactly what I've requested.  You have not.  If anything, you are giving Christians more to go on, because they can effectively deny what you have to say simply because you are overstating.  Read a real scholar, somebody who has published in dozens of scholarly journals, and even edits his own: Thomas L. Thompson.  But you probably don't even know what that means.