Us non-decisive non-committal slightly spiritual agnostic-deists have to remain open-minded if we're ever going to begin to decide exactly where we might stand on religious matters such as these... P.S. - Nice to see you!
I'm not sure that I have context on this, but can I make a plea for a level playing field? Let me explain what I mean. I've seen quite a few pages online written by people advocating a "Jesus myth" idea. What I sometimes see, when these people talk about "evidence for Jesus", is that they don't ever consider what kind of evidence we usually have for people in antiquity. (Indeed, candidly, some of these writers display clear evidence of knowing very little about antiquity, and caring less...) So they sort of make up their criteria as they go along. That can't be helpful, logically; because it means that they decide their criteria for whether we have enough evidence for something that they don't want to believe, based on what they make up. Whenever these writers start in on how there is no "contemporary" evidence, you can smell this process going on. Because when you point out that we have accounts by people Jesus knew, they start saying "oh well we can't accept those either". There is always *some* excuse from these folks to ignore data. But, whatever our opinions, surely we have to start with data and see what it says, and draw conclusions from that, rather than go around finding ever more strained reasons to ignore the data, in order to argue from a manufactured lack of data? They fall into this trap in perfect good faith, of course; but it arises from looking for what would be convenient, rather than looking at what sort of information is generally available for other people of the same kind. The other pitfall that you sometimes see people fall into is that, when they realise what kinds of evidence we generally have for ancient history, they say "oh well, if THAT is all you have, then of course you don't have any evidence for any body". This amounts to "ancient history is bunk", which is, of course, obscurantism. Just some general thoughts, which I hope will be helpful? All the best, Roger Pearse
For starters, the whole "Jesus Myth" issue actually does not depend whatsoever on whether or not there was an actual historical person we would recognize as being the source of the myth. Myths do not generally arise complete like Venus from Zeus's head. They are the current and still evolving results of a process that might incorporate all sorts of historical verities with an equal number of pleasant fictions. Myths do not need to be true to "teach truth." And at the same time, divining a shred of verifiable truth from the myth does not validate the rest of it. Schliemann was able to use the hints and suggestions from Homer's Iliad and Odyssey to find the long lost ruins of the historical Troy. That does not indicate we should also believe that a cyclops named Polyphemus hurled boulders at passing ships from the slopes of mount Etna, or that the monsters of Scylla and Charybdis patrolled the Straight of Messina. If Christianity is not true, it ultimately does not matter whether or not a real Jesus ever existed. The Jesus of contemporary Christianity is a highly evolved theological construct. It is almost conceivable that the historical Jesus, if there is one, would guess for a second that modern Christians were talking about him.
But that is right to the point of my thread... People claim things about Jesus based upon stories handed down. This is the "mythology" of Jesus. I am using this term, myth, very broadly. Some of the claims come from people who lived at the same time as Jesus (Paul) and people who actually spent a great deal of time with Jesus (Peter). Those people who claim that the person Jesus (whether God or not) never really existed are functioning on an intellectual level that is not at all in keeping with the accepted norms of analysis of antiquity. One has to create a special set of criteria for "proof" to deny the existence of a personage named Jesus that they do not apply to secular personages. It is not reasonable to deny that a person named Jesus of Nazareth lived, had many followers, disrupted the social order of both the Jewish hierarchy and of the Roman rule, and for that, died on a cross. Ti deny that the person did not exist is intellectually hypocritical unless one also denies the existence of persons like Julius Caesar.
Why would you care whether we think it is possible that Jesus had walked the earth? Belief in Jesus is a matter of faith. There is no physical evidence, nor need there be for matters of faith. Myself- I think Jesus the man may have existed. He might even be Jesus of the Bible. Or he may not have. I consider him no more real or not real than Mohammed or Abraham.
But that's the classic historical problem. The "sources" you refer to are themselves part of the myth and to a large extent mythological. We can be reasonably certain that none of the Gospels are actually authored by their namesake evangelists, and are in all four cases highly evolved theological documents assembled from multiple sources. Only a small number of Epistles are even conceivably associated with their namesake authors, and most of those are Pauline. That in itself is a massive problem, since what we now consider orthodox Christianity is not a product of Jesus at all, but of Paul as the primary theologian of the faith. We further need to be concerned with the method by which Pauline Christianity asserted its dominance over the vast diversity of the early Christian sects... essentially at the tip of the sword, followed by its adoption as an Imperial beard by the Romans. What all of this essentially means is that it does not matter whether Jesus ever existed or not. He is not even the most important person in Christian history. Actually... once you get past "It is not reasonable to deny that a person named Jesus of Nazareth lived..." everything else in that account is ripe for skepticism. I especially squirm at the assertion that he "disrupted the social order of both the Jewish hierarchy and of the Roman rule." There is no hint in the historical record that Jesus or the early Christians had any such effect. In fact... it was only among the Gentiles that Christianity began to seriously spread, in part because it is a syncretic faith combining a little messianic Judaism with a lot of Hellenistic paganism. Among the places that Christianity would have the least influence until it was imposed by the Byzantines was Judea. Bad, bad, bad example. You certainly are not suggesting that the historical evidence for Caesar is comparable to that for Jesus, right? I personally own (for just one example in a thousand) several coins minted by Caesar with his name and image on them. What is there comparable for Jesus?
This is what roger_pearse was referring to. Dismissing historical documents out of hand because you don't like what they say rather than weighing them on their historical merit is hypocritical and not academically sound. But we need not rely soley on the Gospels--we have the epistles of Paul and peter--as well as all sorts of other non-canonical sources that attest to Jesus. It is certainly no less convincing--and actually more evidence--than most figures of antiquity, Support this unsubstantiated claim with specific historical references, please. He is CENTRAL to the entirety of Christendom! What a bunch of vague assertions! Besides the Biblical accounts: http://carm.org/non-biblical-accounts-new-testament-events-andor-people The prayer box of the OP is one such example. Remember, Christianity in it's earliest days was illegal, so there are far fewer items to find than the abundance of currency.
This seems to use the term "Jesus myth" in a manner other than that which is usual. Whenever I have encountered it, this term specifically refers to the idea that Jesus never existed. I would refer you to the various writers of that camp for clarification. Perhaps, although I wonder a little whether these claims could be shown to be so. But the subject is one outside my specific knowledge, so perhaps I can pass. Except to historians, I suggest. You are welcome to your opinion. I think it is rather mistaken, however. (The sense of your remarks suggests that you meant to write "inconceivable"? or "would not guess"? I reply on that basis). All the best, Roger Pearse
I am unable to parse this; would you explain what you mean? I worry in case this is merely a long way of saying "unreliable", you see. I'm not sure who "we" are. Faced with the unanimous testimony of the historical record, that they WERE so authored, and an entire absence of reasoned explanation as to why we should suppose otherwise, I would presume that they WERE so authored. Whyever not? At this point I would ask you to produce the ancient sources that tell us a story of this kind, without selection. I think none such exists. These words are, I think, merely pretexts to ignore them. This won't do. Note that this is not to deny that both Matthew and Luke used several sources. Luke indeed says that he did; and comparison with Mark indicates that both authors had access to a version of that text. But your claim goes considerably further than this, and some evidence for it would seem appropriate. You seem very certain here. Quite why we should believe any of this I have never learned. But then I am a rather sceptical soul, at least when it comes to claims about matters of controversy based on something other than actual evidence. An interesting claim, but again one for which you offer no evidence. The evidence, such as it is, would seem to be against you. At this point, I have to say (without disrespect) that this post seems to be composed by throwing together a random assortment of anti-Christian claims. I couldn't see how this last paragraph was relevant to the rest of it. And I do wonder whether you could demonstrate any of this from original sources? Incidentally, I would ask, if you consider that all the sources are unreliable -- which seems to be your position -- how you come to have sources for these historical claims which ARE reliable. Where did they come from? It seems to matter to you, my friend; I only note this, because, well... you've spent hours of the brief life you have on this planet writing about it. If you look in the gospels, which are certainly part of the historical record, you will find some suggestions along these lines. Christianity is not syncretic, and I would wonder at the claim, were it not that I am familiar with the curious blindness of certain literature. Indeed the accusation is made by those authors purely and precisely because it isn't true, because Christians object -- and have always objected -- to syncretism, and therefore can be taunted with accusations that "Christianity is really paganism". If Christians were syncretic, the observation would lose its point. The position which you repeat seems to involve rather a lot of things that aren't true, or that I'm not sure you could show to be true. You know ... ... would I be right in supposing that your preferred religious position is essentially to live by some subset of the societal values of the century and country that you happened to be born in? Because if so, might I suggest that you could usefully direct your scepticism to that. And it does seem reasonable to expect those attacking the religious/other position of others to indicate what their preferred theology/other position is. Anything else seems likely to degenerate into peanut throwing (and most anti-Christian polemic is not better than this, to a sceptical mind). I believe the comparison usually intended in this argument is with the *literary* evidence for Julius Caesar, and that the argument has got rather corrupted in transmission. But I think that would still be a bad argument, since Caesar appears extensively in Roman and Greek literature. It would, indeed, be a bad comparison on several grounds. Surely we need to compare like with like? Jesus was not an emperor, and did not leave coins and monuments behind him. If to do so is the only guarantee of historicity, most of the classical world would disappear! In this case, however, Felicity was perhaps merely making the point that debunking historical evidence is all very well, but there is no particular reason why it should stop with Jesus, rather than Julius Caesar. When you listen to all the ad hominem arguments made against the gospels, on religious grounds, just imagine the sort of arguments that could be made against Julius, on political grounds. It would be rather easy to assert that he was largely a fabrication of the Augustan age, and to dismiss the coins as merely evidence of his magistracies, say if we wanted to undermine the claims of some emperor or other to the idea that emperors were a good idea (and, believe it or not, such cynical hanky-panky has indeed taken place, under Napoleon, and later against the Hapsburgs, although not aimed at Julius Caesar but at Tacitus and Constantine respectively). All the best, Roger Pearse
Minted by Caesar? How do you know? Is his DNA on the coins? Did you watch him mint the coins? How do you know it's his image and not someone else's?
No, I meant all the evidence of Caesar's existence. Coins are not proof that he existed, nor are scribblings of ink on a piece of paper referring to someone named Julius Caesar, otherwise, the Bible would be "proof" of Jesus' existence. The only real "proof" of "Caesar's" existence would be some kind of unbroken chain of evidence of DNA combined with an unbroken chain of video evidence that it was his DNA. Now, obviously I'm taking this to an absurd extreme, but that is basically my point. These "Jesus didn't actually exist" people are going to nearly equally absurd lengths to make their case. The transmission of historically-based evidence is not the same thing as testing a scientific hypothesis using rigorous methodology. In fact, I would go so far as to state that some measure of "faith" is required in any historical analysis, since there is no way to know for sure if any of the evidence we have actually means what we think it to mean. We simply have the evidence, logic, and our best guess of what happened. Using that standard of "proof", it would be absurd to suggest that a Jew named "Jesus" did not exist. To play devil's advocate, so what? Those are mere scribblings on a piece of paper. That's not "proof" that Caesar actually existed. Is it strong evidence of his existence? Certainly. But it's not enough to conclude definitively that he actually existed. I could posit any number of scenarios in which Caesar was not a real person and there would be no way for anyone to disprove my hypothesis. In a strictly scientific sense, Caesar did not exist!
I would also like to point out that early religions commonly used an oral tradition in the transmission of information and this was often just as accurate, if not more accurate, a way of keeping a historical or cultural record. For instance, Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha, never actually wrote any of his teachings down, nor did any of his disciples. It was only after several generations that his teachings were transcribed, but there is no reason to believe that he did not exist, nor is the "cottage industry" of denialists as prevalent. I wonder why that is...
I think these are bad types of arguments, tho, since they could equally be applied to anything or nothing. I believe there are large numbers of coin images online. Would someone care to locate some for Julius and post a link here? Then at least we could see what we are talking about. All the best, Roger Pearse
I'm not sure whether that is generally so. But I gather that Zoroastrian teaching was not written down until the 4-5th century AD, almost 1,000 years after Zoroaster taught. When it was, they used a specially devised script, and deposited copies of these newly written scriptures in the fire temples in Persia (or so I am told). I would imagine that this was all a response to the actions of Constantine in the early 4th century, legalising and promoting Christianity and placing copies of the bible in new churches at state expense (although he did not make Christianity the state religion; that had to wait for Theodosius I ca. 390). The so-called "Great Avesta", the book(s) in question, however, have not survived. The moslems destroyed them when they conquered Persia in the 7th century. Only about a quarter of Avestan literature survives, none of it in copies earlier than the 13th century. In addition, Avestan literature contains material influenced by a reaction against Christianity. Yet there can be little doubt that much in this corpus is very ancient, in some cases pre-dating Zoroaster himself. * In short, when people want a copy of something, they do copy it. They don't usually write something else instead. All the best, Roger Pearse *Note that I have not verified all these claims about Zoroastrian literature. I found all this while reading around the subject, but I don't know on what evidence it is based. Believe with caution!
He is showing you the same verse I did form Augustine, by a different translater. The verse I showed you uses Mithra, as the term (at the bottom) of this second translation has "the priest of the Pilleatus" which refers to Mithra. And again it says - "Therefore some spirit or other contrived the COUNTERFIT that His image should be bought for blood, because he knew that the human race WAS AT SOME TIME to be redeemed by the precious blood. For evil spirits counterfeit certain shadows of honor to themselves, that they may deceive those who follow Christ. And below that So much so, my brethren, that those who seduce by means of amulets, by incantations, by the devices of the enemy, MINGLE THE NAME OF CHRIST with their incantations: because they are not now able to seduce Christians, so as to give them poison they add some honey, that by means of the sweet the bitter may be concealed, and be drunk to ruin. So much so, that I know that the PRIEST OF PILLEATUS was sometimes in the habit of saying, PILLEATUS himself also IS A CHRISTIAN. Why so, brethren, unless that they were not able otherwise to seduce Christians? We know Mithra was called the annointed, Christos, and his followers a form of the word just as Christians and this, and the fact that Mithras was first, is what Augustine is refering to as being a "counterfit BEFORE Christianity BECAUSE they knew there "WAS AT SOME TIME" IN THE FUTURE the redemption by Jesus' blood.
No, I agree this probably refers to Mithras (not Mithra -- that's the Persian deity, and the two are separate). Thank you for explaining how you saw this -- it does require some careful reading, doesn't it? The link is http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701007.htm. Let's have the context, before we go further. The "lion", therefore, here is the devil. The reference is to the biblical text about the devil, as a "roaring lion". Here I think Augustine is drawing on Justin (and following him, Tertullian) here. these say that the devil knew that the Christ would be born "at some time", and so made up some pagan cults, drawing on the Hebrew bible, to "fulfil" the prophecies in it. He goes on: I.e. the devil is being conquered by the Christians. I.e. the devil invented pagan cults, based on Jewish prophecies, before Christ came. Why? He tells us: I.e. in order to spread confusion, in order to screw up the church. The use of the name of Christ in magical texts can be seen in the Greek magical papyri (about which I will bore everyone if given a reasonable opening!). And Augustine then goes on to give a specific example: That is, Christianity by 400 is so omnipresent that the pagan cults themselves are trying to syncretise with it. I see in this the general point that pagan cults borrowed from Judaism; and a specific point at the end, of a priest of Mithras trying to claim that Mithras is in some way Christian. But what I do not see is a claim that Mithras, specifically, is pre-Christian? Am I missing something? I don't know this. Do you have an ancient source that says so? Ditto. I have a feeling that someone you're reading is playing games with words here -- do be wary. It could be so; but nothing in the text says that Mithras was the counterfeit before Christianity. For that, we would probably have to see Isis. Nor am I sure that it is terribly safe to presume that how pagan cults responded to the Christian challenge at the end of the 4th century is how they were earlier. The cult of Cybele, by the 5th century, had managed to manufacture "scriptures", previously unknown. These cults were syncretistic, remember; they did borrow elements from anyone if it was convenient. All the best, Roger Pearse
No--it was the link to the original source you linked to. I clicked on it through what you provided. If it's a "different translator" then your source is guilty of false attribution. Can you link to some identification of this priest of Pilleatus? I can't find anything that says who this is or how he is associated with Mithra.
Um, gently here. I think rendering "Pilleatus" as "Mithras" is the sort of thing an over-enthusiastic translator might do, without evil intent. But yes, let's see precisely which translations we're talking about. The one I linked to is the NPNF 19th century one. "Pilleatus" means "cap-wearer". The reference is doubtless to the phyrgian cap which Mithras is usually (but not always) depicted wearing. But gods wearing a phygian cap are not necessarily Mithras. This link, for instance (Lancellotti, Attis between myth and history: king, priest and god, Brill: 2002, p.142 and n.99), presumes the reference is to Attis, and uses it as part of an ongoing argument. There is definite evidence that the cult of Attis did try to adopt Christian ideas of resurrection in the mid-4th century -- the account given by Firmicus Maternus more or less says just this. The new translation of Augustine indicates the uncertainty here. All the best, Roger Pearse
