The Co-existence of Science and Theology

04/03/2008 10:18:05 AM · #1601

Originally posted by chalice:

Paul is not the "only source of Jesus' life for about four decades after his death. Mark, Luke, and Matthew all fit inside the four decades time frame, giving their gospels to posterity. And Jesus' life was well known by his contemporaries (Peter, John, etc.) in addition to Paul, all of whom did a pretty fair job of being a "source" as far as the establishment of the early church is concerned.

A source coming after the original source is no longer a source, it's a copy. What did Peter write that shows him to be a reliable historical source? Sorry, it's been many years.

Originally posted by chalice:

Given the magnitude of the church's growth in early times, especially in the face of persecution and opposition from people in authority, I'd say the job was handled well enough. No abandonment of reason, logic or sense involved.

Except when it comes to the whole virginal birth, walking on water, and rising from the dead thing.

Originally posted by chalice:

You're quite serious that "all that Paul knew about Jesus" is his crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension?

From the position of being a reporter that we today have to rely on for verification of certain facts? Yes.

Originally posted by chalice:

The fact that Paul didn't regurgitate all the events of Jesus' life in his letters to people who were already familiar with those events doesn't mean he was unfamiliar with Jesus' life.

That's very true. It is also a long, long way from proving he was familiar with them. I'm sorry, but Paul's going to have to do better than to not mention anything seminal at all about Jesus' ministry, if I am to consider that he knew anything about it, or that it wasn't simply made up many decades after the fact because the apocalypse wasn't being ushered in fast enough for some people.

Originally posted by chalice:

And as for this Mithras mythology comparison argument, I seriously doubt that any of the contemporaries of Jesus were walking around after his death saying, in effect, "Whoa, I've heard this god/man resurrection story somewhere before. Wasn't Mithras the dude that first came up with that gig? That Paul is a major plagerizer."

That's true, no wiki back then for the masses. Or much reading at all. Mithras' was a mystery cult, recall.

Originally posted by chalice:

I suspect, (but I'll admit that I haven't researched) the earliest post-Jesus, written arguments of this comparison come from non-Christian scholars who were seeking to discredit the Christian experience. My guess is late 1700s, early 1800s, but maybe there are earlier writings. I don't know, but I'd be interested in any early citation you can give me so I can read up on it.

Oh, I don't give citations any more. I'll sell 'em, but they're no longer free. But I agree, comparative religious studies would be fairly new, I'd think. That doesn't mean the comparisons are irrelevant, or that you can automatically discern the intentions of the scholar however. For example, why can't I look at culture A and compare it with culture B and note the similarities, then assume there was some assimilation going on at some point, without you suggsting that I have an ulterior motive to eradicate culture B?

Originally posted by chalice:

You seem to imply that Paul is the architect of the adoption of Mithras (and similar) mythologies into Christianity by your "Paul's holes" comment. Paul was an instantanious convert to Christianity on the road to Damascus. He was preaching the good news immediately after his conversion.

According to him, yes. He's a great source on himself. No, I can't speculate if he was any kind of architect of deception, but he's the main press secretary for the movement, so all eyes on him I guess.

Originally posted by chalice:

It's way over the top to suggest that because there are some early pagan similarities he decided to fake a good story so he could get his clock cleaned by the orthodox religious order from which he came and in which he was well-schooled.

This and all subsequent postulating is done by you, not me.

Message edited by author 2008-04-03 10:19:05.

04/03/2008 10:35:29 AM · #1602

Originally posted by chalice:

The real issue would be what else, if anything, besides being a "real man" was Jesus?

A myth? That's my position anyway.

Originally posted by chalice:

In any event, to couch your argument in dogma and then claim I can't rejoin in kind, seems a bit disingenuous to me.

Maybe. I suppose it would have been more accurate for me to tell you that I find it difficult to accept anything you're saying when it is so imbued with your own personal points of faith. For example, it seems to me you speak a lot like, "Jesus is God's son, the proof of which is that he said so." That's overly simplistic, but the bases of your arguments are the very points that are contentious.

Originally posted by chalice:

If you are making the argument that there is a comparison between Mythras and Jesus it is incumbant of you to bridge every chasm of difference to make that stick

I don't know about that. If I demonstrate similarities, how is it incumbent on me to make sure I discuss the seminal differences point for point? I would think that would be the job of the opposing view. For the sake of getting on with your point, I'll first accept that it was hyperbole when I said the two shared the "exact same script". But it's enough for me to point out the similarities, posit that they're too similar to be coincidence and suggest some stuff from comparitive mythological studies, and move on. As an example, must I point out all the major differences between the morphologies of German and Dutch before I can suggest that they must be related in some way by their similarities?

04/03/2008 10:46:04 AM · #1603

Originally posted by chalice:

I seriously doubt that any Romans were walking around saying ""Whoa, I've heard this Jupiter story somewhere before. Wasn't Zeus the dude that first came up with that whole lightning bolt gig?"

Originally posted by chalice:

Is it way over the top to suggest that Jim Jones or David Koresh or even Joseph Smith would decide to fake a good story so they could be ostracized by the mainstream religions from which they came and in which they were well-schooled? What would happen if a modern Emperor Constantine declared that one of these guys' religions was the real deal that everyone in the empire must follow?

04/03/2008 10:48:57 AM · #1604

Originally posted by chalice:

Leaving that all aside, though, there is another issue. It's irrelevant how many similarities exist.

No, it's not. That is oversimplification in the extreme. You're talking about pre-industrial, pre-science cultures living in extremely close quarters together under the aegis of traditions that are extremely hard to die. In fact, they don't die, they merely change, undergoing metamorphoses as they pass from culture to culture but maintaining the grains of their histories all the same. I would be completely shocked to learn that there were no similarities. That's what stretches incredulity. You don't need a smoking gun for that; you only need the obvious similarities and then the larger picture, and the evidence that in the ancient world, the pattern of religious metamorphosis is consistent, well-established, and known.

04/03/2008 11:27:07 AM · #1605

Originally posted by chalice:

It's irrelevant how many similarities exist.

I would argue that similarities are absolutely critical for broad acceptance of a new story. You won't gather nearly as many followers if you claim their deeply held beliefs are all wrong. It's much better to claim their beliefs are largely true except for some details or interpretation. Those details can vary in significance from Methodist and Episcopal to Sunni and Shiite or Protestant and Catholic to Muslim and Christian, etc. Little wonder, then, that Mark should add details not found in Paul and still later gospels will add further details (including the words of private conversations) not found in their predecessors. You might convince a few people that Comet Hale-Bopp is your cosmic bus ride to salvation, but if you're going to get 1,000 people to drink poisoned Flavor-Aid or fight a war for you, you're gonna have to start with basic mainstream beliefs. If Islam, Christianity and Judaism can all be traced back to the Torah, is it really all that unreasonable to think they can be traced back still further to Zorastrianism (and likely to even older beliefs in turn)?

04/03/2008 11:31:36 AM · #1606

I'm pretty amused here with Louis berating chalice for not having an "original source" for any writings of Peter. Isn't this the same Louis that could provide no "original source" for anything Mithras?

I thought we were off Mithras after Louis pleaded uncle about 10 posts back. Basically chalice and I simply need to ignore the Mithras argument because it is potentially specious having no data cited (other than modern scholar) to back it up. Unless you guys want to start letting me use quotes from Josh McDowell as evidence in our argument. (that would make my job much easier, but I didn't think it would fly.)

In the scientific community the vetting of the Mithras argument above is called "peer review". People look at the hypothesis being presented and ask for supporting evidence. They then evaluate the evidence and a consensus is reached on whether it is valid or not. So far Louis has presented very little evidence for his theory and thus the peers in the group have rejected it.

04/03/2008 11:38:39 AM · #1607

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Basically chalice and I simply need to ignore the Mithras argument because it is potentially specious having no data cited (other than modern scholar) to back it up.

Weren't you given a source last night? "By at least the 3rd century BCE, Mithra was identified as the progeny of Anahita... The largest temple with a Mithraic connection is the Seleucid temple at Kangavar in western Iran (c. 200 BC), which is dedicated to 'Anahita, the Immaculate Virgin Mother of the Lord Mithras'

04/03/2008 11:47:34 AM · #1608

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Basically chalice and I simply need to ignore the Mithras argument because it is potentially specious having no data cited (other than modern scholar) to back it up.

Weren't you given a source last night? "By at least the 3rd century BCE, Mithra was identified as the progeny of Anahita... The largest temple with a Mithraic connection is the Seleucid temple at Kangavar in western Iran (c. 200 BC), which is dedicated to 'Anahita, the Immaculate Virgin Mother of the Lord Mithras'

I didn't see that linked before, but you didn't finish the quote and I honestly don't understand what they mean:

The largest temple with a Mithraic connection is the Seleucid temple at Kangavar in western Iran (c. 200 BC), which is dedicated to "Anahita, the Immaculate Virgin Mother of the Lord Mithras" though no historical evidence is found to support this.

No historical evidence is found to support what?

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

04/03/2008 11:50:35 AM · #1609

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

No historical evidence is found to support what?

I don't understand that part either, although as noted the same could be said of the story of Jesus' virgin birth. In each case, we only have the claims of writers.

scarbrd

Leica M10

04/03/2008 11:52:29 AM · #1610

Originally posted by scalvert:

I've been reading this thread from the sidelines, good stuff.

One observation, I would not call David Koresh "well-schooled" by any means. He was a sorry excuse for a preacher that found some people dumber than him that bought into his BS.

04/03/2008 11:57:24 AM · #1611

I do love reading and learning this stuff. At the least this thread has opened a way to learn more about ancient cultures.

Anyway, wiki has an article on the temple itself: The Anihita Temple at Kangavar In that article the date of 200 BCE seems a lot more suspect and the inscription, interestingly, isn't even mentioned. If the temple had many overhauls, as was probably the case with many ancient buildings, then why couldn't the inscription have come much later?

Message edited by author 2008-04-03 11:58:15.

04/03/2008 12:26:14 PM · #1612

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I thought we were off Mithras after Louis pleaded uncle about 10 posts back.

I plead uncle? I must admit, I missed my own pleading. Sorry. Must have been about the time you started to look at these issues critically.

04/03/2008 12:27:57 PM · #1613

I AGREE WITH WHOMEVER SAID ABOVE THAT THIS THREAD IS GETTING TOO LONG. I WILL START A NEW THREAD AND QUOTE THE LAST 5 POSTS SO WE CAN CARRY ON IN A FASTER LOADING THREAD.