quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercury:
Well, why not!? - many Popes, Evangelical Protestent Preachers, Politicians and Fundi Money Scammers privately think it's all Bull Shit, but that doesn't stop them!

---

[yes ... this thread really has degraded to "dansgold and Merc's land of a thousand zingers"!]

------------------
-- dansgold
The avalanche has started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote.

Can I sHout a quiet "Halleluia"

There was a snippet of information on Paul Harvey's broadcast that I haven't been able to verify anywhere else. An archelologist found a inscription in an ancient burial ground. It was translated as "...James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." It was dated to 60 C.E. Right now it is only speculation that this inded refers to "the" James, son of "the" Joseph and brother of "the" Jesus. What is going to through certain orthadox religions into a tizzy is that it say "Son of Joseph." These religions have always insisted that Jesus was an only child and that the word "brother" was commonly used for cousins. Heck "father" means "father". no way to interpret that one as "uncle." But, come to think of it, the explanation will be put forth that James was a soon from a previous marriage and all that this proves (if it proves anything) is that Joseph was a widower.

Merc and Dansgold, nothing is going to be resolved by taking pot shots at each other. Besides, I'm in the cross-fire here. (No pun intended.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by eliza_nightvoice:
There was a snippet of information on Paul Harvey's broadcast that I haven't been able to verify anywhere else. An archelologist found a inscription in an ancient burial ground. It was translated as "...James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." It was dated to 60 C.E. Right now it is only speculation that this inded refers to "the" James, son of "the" Joseph and brother of "the" Jesus. What is going to through certain orthadox religions into a tizzy is that it say "Son of Joseph." These religions have always insisted that Jesus was an only child and that the word "brother" was commonly used for cousins. Heck "father" means "father". no way to interpret that one as "uncle." But, come to think of it, the explanation will be put forth that James was a soon from a previous marriage and all that this proves (if it proves anything) is that Joseph was a widower.

Merc and Dansgold, nothing is going to be resolved by taking pot shots at each other. Besides, I'm in the cross-fire here. (No pun intended.)

---

Ouch ... that's certainly going to throw the Greek Orthodox, Amenian Orthodox, etc. ... and conservative Catholics into a tizz alrighty.

I also suspect (or perhaps just imagine) that one of the occasional 'barbs' twixt Merc and I are really full of that much rancor. I think rather highly of the Mercster, and I'd like to hallucinate that he feels much the same.

Of course I feel the same...it's all about the content not the author! We have a long history of healthy debate and respect here and we both know there is no real rancor in our exchanges.

Anyway, "en garde!" ...it's back to business!!
------------------------
Can I ignore the fact that so many prior big religions/cults (like Mythra, Apis, Zoroaster, and Krishna) had:

- man-gods born of virgins
- dec 25 as the birthday
- birth in a manger/cave
- birth announced by a star
- wise men
- a slaughter of the innocents
- healer / raised the dead etc..
- crucifixion
- resurrection after 3 days
- a "redeemer" god - come to save mankind / died for our benefit

There comes a point when you have to do some heavy mental gymnastics NOT to see that every major element of the Jesus story is already present...that somebody copied from somebody else? Or, perhaps it is also true that human myth making takes on very predictable forms. But to deny any connection is beyond my power to comprehend. And to think that the Christian version is THE true story, while the others are just myth, well....

Of course there is nothing new about doctrinaire Christian authors earnestly trying to explain away these inconvenient similarities. They have too, or they'd have to re-evaluate their own beliefs. So, when Adolf von Harnack -writing in the 19th century- said that: "(we) first put in the Christian elements, and then are staggered to find them there" I'm not impressed. He was already a theologian and did not have the evidnece back in 1885 that we have today. And he also misses the obvious corollary, that perhaps WE are staggered to find them THERE, because they are there! And this puts cold water on our notions that our religion is so special. The story is old...only the names of the gods and heroes change.

Also, you are not correct when you say we don't 'really know the proper dating for these myths.' The dating of Mithraic sites is not a big question mark - the firm archaeological record along with references in classical texts can set the record straight for you if only you were interested in learning more. We know that Mithra was called "The Way, the Truth and the Light,” and “Logos,” and “Redeemer,” and “Savior” and “Messiah." These words can still be seen inscribed on Mythraic alters in Italy (and elsewhere). Only by ignoring the extensive historical/archeological/literary record can one ask " how can [we] say who was copying whom?" Well, Mithra predates Christ. So absent a "time machine" the older myth can't possibly copy from a later one!

Ok, I know, you want to believe that the Christ story is ALL TRUE and accurate. I'm just not sure if you are really open to discussion on this at all. So would I be wrong to say that NO evidence to the contrary would ever disabuse you of this idea? Isn't that the real issue here?

p.s. If you care to read an intersting overview of this period written by a "living" author, try Robin Lane Fox's Pagans and Christians

quote:

---

Nightvoice said: "These religions have always insisted that Jesus was an only child and that the word "brother" was commonly used for cousins. Heck "father" means "father". no way to interpret that one as "uncle."

---

Yes, it's true. I too saw the "James brother of Jesus SON of Joseph" story on the evening news today. Wow! ... the spin on this one will be fun to watch!

Scholar Touts Oldest Link to Jesus
Mon Oct 21,
By RICHARD N. OSTLING, AP Religion Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - A burial box that was recently discovered in Israel and dates to the first century could be the oldest archaeological link to Jesus Christ, according to a French scholar whose findings were published Monday.

An inscription in the Aramaic language — "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" — appears on an empty ossuary, a limestone burial box for bones.

Andre Lemaire said it's "very probable" the writing refers to Jesus of Nazareth. He dates the ossuary to A.D. 63, just three decades after the crucifixion. ....

The entire article

Let the spinning begin!

"Facts" like this new find are probably why the Church of Rome has dragged its feet so long on the translation od the "Dead Sea Scrolls." It wasn't until an organization that had a complete photographic set released
the photographs to scholars did the scroll translatations entered the public domain. The photographs were given to tis organization as a safegard in case the
originals were damaged.

quote:

---

James is depicted as Jesus' brother in the Gospels and head of the Jerusalem church in the Book of Acts and Paul's epistles.

The first century Jewish historian Josephus recorded that "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, James by name," was stoned to death as a Jewish heretic in A.D. 62. If his bones were placed in an ossuary the inscription would have occurred the following year, around A.D. 63.

Until now, the oldest surviving artifact that mentions Jesus is a fragment of chapter 18 in John's Gospel from a manuscript dated around A.D. 125. It was discovered in Egypt in 1920.

"Jews practiced ossuary burials only between 20 B.C. and A.D. 70, puts the inscription squarely in the time of Jesus and James, who led the early church in Jerusalem."

---

Very interesting...

quote:

---

as told by Mercury
p.s. If you care to read an intersting overview of this period written by a "living" author, try Robin Lane Fox's Pagans and Christians

---

He establishes that Mithraism came to the Latin West in the late first century, and that it was at that time practiced mostly by small groups of soldiers. So, it seems unlikely that 1 Thessalonians, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Romans, Philippians or Philemon ... all dated at early to mid first century by atheist scholars ... and maybe even
earlier ... "stole" anything from Mithraism. Fox's account further seems to suggest strongly that the idea of a Mithraic "assent to heaven" doesn't appear in any texts until around 170 A.D.(or C.E. if you so prefer) Fot the moment let's just assume that the whole Jesus story is a myth. So, is it more likely that an educated Hebrew like Paul would get his ideas from some pagan cult which he would not have likely even encountered until after he wrote his
letters ... or is it more likely that he would be quoting from his own culture's prophetic works, which contain all of the same kinds of references? Given that the events of Jesus' life occured in Judea and not Rome proper (where all the Mithra worship showed up) ... how does one propose a 'link'. Its seems you would need both a time machine and a very fast camel!

Careful who you cite, Merc ... I have a lot of books. More importantly, I've read them. You might also like Fox's "The Unauthorized Version".

Timelines - and details - are important. It is all too easy to take a one-inch-deep look at things and jump to conclusions which are not honestly supported by the actual evidence. Take the supposed "theft" of ideas from the Krishna narrartive. It is common knowledge that Hinduism predates Christianity by thousands of years. So when you hear all of these similarities between

Krishna an Jesus - the jump is to conclude that Christians stole this story and made it part of their own mythology. The important piece that is missing is that the Krishna narrative doesn't appear until around 200 A.D. to 300 A.D. Hinduism is very much a "work in progress" and the "Krishna parallels" get added to the Mahabharata far too late in the game to have been the source for the Jesus story.

There is also a tendency by those who put together these "parallel lists" to play fast and loose with the facts. A good example of this is including the "December 25th birth" nonsense. There aren't any serious scholars who think that Jesus was actually born on December 25th, and neither do most Christians. The fact we've chosen to celebrate Christmas on that date doesn't show anything except that a convenient date was picked where a bunch of people were
partying anyway!

Suggesting otherwise is either evidence of poor scholarship or an attempt to bamboozle the less informed.

Regarding whether I am "open to discussion' on any of this, Merc: How many books by Christian scholars do you have on your wall? I can claim that I am at least open enough to seriously study the claims of those with whom I ultimately disagree.

quote:

---

Dansgold said (in an attempt at provocation): "

"I don't think you are going to like this much Merc ..."- "Careful who you cite, Merc ... I have a lot of books. More importantly, I've read them.

---

Ah ah ah...Careful on your reading comprehension Dansgold, I did not "cite" Fox...I only recommended the book as a "good overview" of the period.

Anwyay, I'm glad you know the book! And maybe you should read it again? Anyway, personally, I don't have to agree with every sentence to recommend it. You see, I'm open minded, and despite any problems I see in his work, I still think Fox's book is a good point of departure for those interested in an overview of the period we are discussing. Further, I have a lot of books too, monsignore, and yes, I read them too!

Anyway more specific details on Mithra et al later....too much real work going on today right now! Help!

Using the following protocols, I can guarantee that you will be able to find all the parallels you like between paganism and Christianity or indeed, properly adapted, between any other two unrelated subjects that you care to name.

1. The first thing to do is ensure you cast your net as widely as possible. So within Christianity you should include every cult, heresy and sect you can get your hands on. Gnosticism will be particularly helpful as they did indeed borrow large chunks of pagan thought which is partly why they were considered heretics in the first place. As for paganism, this can include just about everything. Freke and Gandy comb not only Greek cults (Oedipus) but also Egyptian (Horus and Osiris), Roman (Bacchus) and Persian (Mithras). Elsewhere you will find Celtic deities, Norse beserkers and Indian mystics pulled into the fray. Now, with this vast body of writing, finding parallels will not be too challenging provided you are willing to wade through it all.
2. But don't restrict yourselves to pagan religions from before the time of Christ. Remember your methodology should be that Christians copied pagans and not the other way around. This is useful because you can now point to similarities between paganism and Christianity after the latter was already widespread. So if, like Freke and Gandy, you can find a picture showing Bacchus on a cross dating from two hundred years after Jesus was crucified you can still claim that the Christians copied the pagans and not the other way around.
3. Language is important. Christian terms such as 'salvation', 'Eucharist', 'word made flesh' and 'lamb of god' are common currency today. Therefore when translating or paraphrasing pagan sources always use modern Christian language. Never mind that the ancient pagans would not have known what you were on about - you are not talking to them. In this way you can call a woman being raped by various kinds of wildlife a 'virgin birth', you can call having ones body parts stuck back together a 'resurrection' and you can call just about every Greek hero a 'son of god'. Also it is helpful to use King James Bible phrases and style when quoting pagan texts. It gives them some more gravitas.
4. Do try to confuse liturgy and practice with history. For instance the mystery religions and Christianity were both underground movements so they had to operate in similar sorts of ways. Sacred meals and ritual washing are as old as religion itself so the Christianity using them as well as pagans is not surprising at all. Make it sound like a complete revelation.
5. Say totally different things are in fact closely related. For instance, Mithras was sometimes represented by a bull. Say this is the same as Jesus being called the lamb of God (ignoring that one is a symbol of sexuality and strength and the other of innocence and humility). Compare the Mithric ritual of taking a shower in the warm blood of the aforementioned bull with Christian baptism with water. Claim that the thieves crucified with Jesus are the same as a pair of torch bearers that appear on some illustrations of Bacchus.
6. For goodness sake do not mention the things that really made the pagan mysteries interesting. After all your work of showing that Jesus and Bacchus are one and the same, you will lose everything if you let on that Bacchus was the god of drunkenness and his worship involved getting plastered and having sex with anything in sight (goats being a particular favourite). In fact, keep sex out of it altogether. Yes, sex was the central feature of an awful lot of these pagan rituals but that is not the point your are trying to make.
7. Avoid up to date scholarship which will probably pour cold water over your vaunted theories. You will find plenty of nineteenth and early twentieth century writers with a bone to pick that can support your wildest speculations. And do not worry if not everyone agrees with you - you can always dismiss the dissenters as apologists or as those unable to cope with your earth shattering ideas.
   

H. Pretend that all scholarship is equal. This is really important, because you probably have to equate the views of a recently graduated Journalism major from Podunk U, as having as much authority on the subject as a multi-doctorate professor with 40 years of field work. If you do happen to encounter this particular kind of face-off ... just note that one has a "fresh perspective and bold new ideas" which are hard for the "old fossils" to accept. This kind of approach allows you to characterize the argument without having to address the issue of any actual qualifications. And don't get caught up in specialties - a Math major is as much an expert as an historian, and a zookeeper has equal footing with an expert in ancient languages and customs ... as long as they agree with you of course!

Anyway, isn't this list ultimately irrelevant as far as discussing the 'Jesus Thing' with you goes?
(see below)

quote:

---

Mercury said: "Ok, I know, you want to believe that the Christ story is ALL TRUE and accurate. (...) would I be wrong to say that NO evidence to the contrary would ever disabuse you of this idea (ie. that the Jesus story is true)? "

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LisaA:
Dan----you ROCK!

---

Uhhh... I would confuse Dan with the Church of Rome concept of Peter.

He is a good debater, though

Secondly, regarding if I could ever be disabused of the notion that "the Christ story is ALL TRUE and accurate" ...

I think it's unfair to ask a question like that and use a loaded term like "disabused", meaning "freed from falsehood or error". It's bit like asking if there is anything which would convince me to stop beating my wife. It assumes that your case (Jesus as myth) has been established to the point where it isn't contestable. If we can't agree on anything else, we should at least acknowledge that it remains an open question for many, many people more educated and knowledgeable than you or I are likely to become on the subject. If we can't meet there, then a whole lot of this discussion is pointless.

I think it would be disingenuous of me to just leave that question without trying to answer it - however much I think the language is 'rigged'. I want to be very careful here, as I don't want to turn this into either a) A Witnessing Opportunity [oh the joy, cue the choir ] or b) A rambling missive on denominational differences.

I'm left in a quandry however. I really don't know what youmean when you say "the Christ Story" or what all of it is. If it has anything to do with being born on the 25th of December - for instance - we're likely to not even be talking about the same thing.

Even so, I think the easy answer is to just say "of course, I have a completely open mind on the subject." But I think anyone who makes that kind of statement is sortof posturing for effect ... nobody is entirely objective about anything, although I think there is great value in trying to be. So, even more important than if I say something like "I'd acknowledge in a heartbeat that the whole thing is a load of horse crap, if only I were provided with compelling evidence", it matters more how I actually approach the nature of the question, and what I do about it. If that's the real measure, then my "yes I can be convinced otherwise" has some meaning. In that respect I feel I am being honest when I say I am "convincable" - I've rejected a whole lot of "Jesus Jargon" and "Ultra Fundamentalist" nonsense already. More than that, my personal studies are serious enough that they include a lot of decidedly "unchristian" sources, and many quite hostile to Christianity. Often I find more value there than anything I would find at the local Christian Book Store/Ghetto. Apart from whatever I have rejected there is a pretty solid core of standard Christianity, but it would be unfair to call me a "standard Christian" in the way you might use that term.

------------------
-- dansgold
The avalanche has started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote.

quote:

---

Originally posted by eliza_nightvoice:
Let's start a new sect that tries to get back as close as possible to the early "Jesus teachings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by eliza_nightvoice:
Of course, we'd have to become time travellers to find out what those teachings actually were.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by eliza_nightvoice:
I knew I was in trouble when the reply email was filled with terms such as "a true blessing", "using your spiritualy gifts and talents for the service of the Lord." Why is it that people put on this persona about their religious beliefs. We are all seekers for the best way to amke it through this life time and make a positive difference in our sphere of influence.

---

quote:

---

Dansgold said: " it matters more how I actually approach the nature of the question, and what I do about it. If that's the real measure, then my "yes I can be convinced otherwise" has some meaning.

---

Of course it might be true as you say that "nobody is entirely objective about anything", but -as I see it- when people have so much invested in something, they tend to be much less objective about it than those who are "indifferent" or "agnostic" (pardon the pun) from the outset. I hope you see what I am trying to say. It's like politics; party affiliations tend to change easier or more often among the less politically committed.

I wish I was as sure as you when you say "[a]part from whatever I have rejected there is a pretty solid core of standard Christianity." The older I get, the less clear that 'core' seems to be. Lately I wonder if even the core I imagine(d) is really just another fable, myth or illusion too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercury:
NO, it does not matter "more how [you] approach the question." That's up to you. I only wanted to know what sort of evidence you would require to be convinced that Christ is not the savior, messiah, son of god etc, or if such an idea is for you impossible. I do understand you are trying to be honest here, but that was really my question.

---

More directly, take the kind of turmoil the recent "James' Burial Box" discovery is causing amongst Catholics and others who hold to the "perpetual virginity of Mary" doctrine. If this discovery is found to be authentic - and I were Catholic - how could I not begin to have serious doubts ... at least about Catholic doctrine?

So, if we found an authentic artifact of some kind - maybe a burial site for someone named "Jesus of Nazareth, son of Joseph" ... with a body which appeared to have been crucified ... yep that would pretty much "roll the stone back" in a sense, eh?

Another way you could do it is with something like the "Jesus Myth" hypothesis ... only one that was a lot less myth - itself - to begin with. Here again, I not trying to be cute or disingenuous. The "Jesus as Myth" idea is so horribly flawed that it isn't even taken seriously by most atheist historians and other experts. (That's a fact, BTW ~ one I'd seriously like you to try to disprove.) I can't be expected to base my "conversion" on the far fringes of inquiry. If the situation were reversed, and the vast body of scholarship said "all of this Jesus nonsense is nothing but myths stolen from other sources" while the opposition could only produce a handful of the likes of Frekes (oooh ... a B.A. in Philosophy - my wife has one of those too, and from a better school!) or Graves (not really taken seriously by anybody anymore) then I'd probably be in the other camp.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercury:
... when people have so much invested in something, they tend to be much less objective about it than those who are "indifferent" or "agnostic" (pardon the pun) from the outset. I hope you see what I am trying to say. It's like politics; party affiliations tend to change easier or more often among the less politically committed.

---

------------------
-- dansgold
The avalanche has started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LisaA:
Lots of people believe Jesus saves souls, but I don't.

---

I think that all that is necessary - in most cases - is to realize that we can all honestly come to different conclusions about these things and tolerate those differences in a spirit of goodwill.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dansgold:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by LisaA:
[b]Lots of people believe Jesus saves souls, but I don't.

---

Ah, here is where the Devil's Advocate in me comes out. What are the souls saved from or for? Does it necessarily follow that whatever that salvation acomplishes, that those who do not believe are not included in that salvation?

I don't think we can squeeze the divine into a box of our own choosing or our limited belief systems, no matter what they are: Judeo-Christian, Islamic, Agnostic, Atheistic, Hindi, Budhist, the Nature-based faiths, Shintoism, Taoism, or any other faith system I've left out and there are a parcel of them.