Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » The Origins Of Christianity (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: The Origins Of Christianity
Cytania
Member
Member # 2598

 - posted      Profile for Cytania     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
AD66 and the romans devastate Jerusalem, many hundreds of jews are slaughtered but many more are taken back to Rome as slaves.

AD300 and Christianity is known as a slave's religion and it's far from popular. But somehow Emperor Constantine takes it up in his struggle with 3 rival Emperors, possibly simply as a new symbol for his troops - the Labarum (PX) cross becomes a potent talisman in battle. As Constantine grows stronger he seizes upon christianity's 'one god' message and adds 'one emperor' and 'one people' (Adolf Hitler would later echo this with 'Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer').

Thus we misunderstand christianity's origins. We look to intertestamental hebrew culture when in fact the seed set root and grew in Rome. We look to the apostles, the saints and the new churches when in fact it's single biggest break came from a bloody warmonger.

Thus can christianity be understood not as the religion of peace it claims to be but as a religion wedded to imperialism from the very beginning. Child and hand-maiden of war.

Posts: 743 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Cy,

I think most people know the basics of that. Namely that Constantine was the major force of Christianities rise to prominence.

I can't wait for the flood of outrage over the religion of war posit. (It's nice when someone other than me outrages the religious on the board.) (Now where's that popcorn?)

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I won't get outraged because of his position, since I'm not religious, but I will get "outraged" at his lack of facts. He's posted nothing more than his opinion, and a wrong one at that.

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Trollish though it may be in nature, Cytania's post contained both facts and an interpretation of them. And the facts are correct. If you find the interpretation objectionable, refute it. Labelling it "wrong" is as obnoxious as you no doubt find the premise in question.

Adam

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Are you interested in the 'origins' of Christianity, most-notably Pauline Christianity and then Nicaean Christianty? or the 'carriers' of the mental illness?

Theories of carriage are directly related to the times in which the theories are created. Today, it is women who were the initial carriers. In former times it has been slaves, saints, martyrs, etc.

My own theory is that it was laid down by the introduction of Mideastern mysticism which rotted out rationalism in the Empire -- most notably under Elagabalus and the deification of Antinoo..s; but this all pales in comparison to the imposition of politics on the empire from Constantine onwards.

Christianity became a political religion in ~0324 and has remained a political religion ever since. Indeed, I do hold it to be not a religious force in any but the most-superficial sense, but a political force of enormous power.

In short, from at least Constantine onwards, Christianity was spread largely by coercion, victimization, and politics.

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hey Richard, you ever read "Julian" by Gore Vidal? [Smile]
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Of course! A fine tour de force, and very popular in its day.

He's a kook, but gads he's original! My favorite work was one that wasn't popular: Messiah. I thought the plot was perfect. It's a religion of suicide, and has euthanasia parlors all over town so that you can fulfill your religious requirement of killing yourself. There were soft lights, perfect music, soothing voices, and poison gas or something. Well, anyway, so the Messiah of the religion lives in a 5th Avenue penthouse, and some apostate wonders why he hasn't committed suicide yet ... What a great plot [Big Grin] .

His memoirs of Julian were modeled on Graves' Claudius -- which is less a masterpiece but even better historically.

There's a great poem by Mullin that ends:

And thus fate intervened
that all the gods denied,
and Julianus Apostata
Shouted at God and died.


Reminds me of the bang at the end of Paradise Lost! It's ironic I suppose, but I consider Constantine the worst emperor, and Julian one of the best.

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@ Adam Masterman:

quote:
If you find the interpretation objectionable, refute it. Labelling it "wrong" is as obnoxious as you no doubt find the premise in question.
If I'm calling out a "troll" why should I go down to the bridge and meet him? He can crawl out from underneath, if he wishes... If he continues to harass passers-by, I come after him, soon enough.

quote:
And the facts are correct.
I didn't say his facts were incorrect, I said his opinion was LACKING them. He does not present enough facts to sufficiently support his conclusion.

Shall we examine them?

Facts(?):
quote:
AD66 and the romans devastate Jerusalem, many hundreds of jews are slaughtered but many more are taken back to Rome as slaves.
Very true, but what this has to do with Christianity as a "Warmongering Religion" is a big question mark, since the main influence of Christianity came by way of the Greeks.

quote:
AD300 and Christianity is known as a slave's religion and it's far from popular.
Also true, but ignores the periods of Christian tolerance and the "Great Persecution" which ended shortly before Constantine "adopted" Christianity.

quote:
But somehow Emperor Constantine takes it up in his struggle with 3 rival Emperors, possibly simply as a new symbol for his troops - the Labarum (PX) cross becomes a potent talisman in battle.
Also true, but ignores history's stated reasons as to why Constantine adopted that symbol.

quote:
As Constantine grows stronger he seizes upon christianity's 'one god' message and adds 'one emperor' and 'one people' (Adolf Hitler would later echo this with 'Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer').
His opinion and completely unsupported, I.e. Lacking fact and a fallacious comparison, to boot.

quote:
Thus we misunderstand christianity's origins.
Ummm... Thus HE misunderstands Christianity's origins, not "WE."

quote:
We look to intertestamental hebrew culture when in fact the seed set root and grew in Rome.
Also ignores the fact that Christianity came by way of the Greeks and has nothing to do with his conclusion below.

quote:
We look to the apostles, the saints and the new churches when in fact it's single biggest break came from a bloody warmonger.
This is quite a leap, and a fallacious one at that. If you hold to the principle that Religions exist to help the sinners, and not the saints, then a "bloody warmonger" is EXACTLY who Christianity is meant to reach.

And his conclusion?
quote:
Thus can christianity be understood not as the religion of peace it claims to be but as a religion wedded to imperialism from the very beginning. Child and hand-maiden of war.
Completely fallacious with no facts to support it.

Where's the point that shows that Christianity today, or even back then, supported the casual use of war? Roman history is WRACKED with civil war, were not all Roman religions, therefore, war mongering? Where's the fact that demonstrates that Christianity was any MORE war mongering than of its contemporaries? Where's the fact that demonstrates that Constantine was 100% devoted to Christianity? That he followed it without fail?

He fallaciously "weds" Constantine with Christianity and uses that to conclude that Christianity is not a religion of peace. I stand by my statement: he is lacking in fact.

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
winkey151
Member
Member # 2910

 - posted      Profile for winkey151   Email winkey151   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The origins of my Christianity...

One day I became acquainted with God who was there before I even knew I needed Him. I called out to Him and He heard my cry and unlocked the chains that I had placed on myself.

I opened His Word and read it, ingested it, followed it and tested the promises that it held. Not one time did it let me down and on many occasions it spared me of many heartaches.

I learned about God's Son, Jesus, who came to earth, lived a sinless life and died for my sins so that I could be united with God... like was always intended.

Now, I would not want to live one moment without God's presence in my life and even if there were no Heaven or Hell... I would still live my life by the Word and treasure each moment I spend with Him.

I could care less about the origins of Christianity, about any religion, about anyones opinions... I only know what I have seen with my own eyes and felt with my own being.

And that is how I see it...
Love you madly,
Winkey [Eek!]

[ October 20, 2006, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: winkey151 ]

Posts: 865 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Functionally and mythically, I'd say Xtianity began with the crucifixion or, at least, the telling of that tale.

While Jesus' living acts took some liberties with Judaist doctrine, they weren't anything to start a major religious schism on, from what I can see. Nothing the Pharisees and Saducees and Heresees couldn't get a rope around and reel back into the corral.

But when word got around that God's Son had not only walked the local streets and performed the requisite miracles, but then allowed himself to be dragged through dirt as low as any mere mortal could be dragged through, in order to perform some mass transaction of soul credit whereby those who believed in him would not perish but have everlasting life...

...that, as they said in vaudeville, was the kicker.

One helluva show. Egalitarian life eternal.

On the one hand, the "anity" that sprang from the legend of Christ was a force for moral evolution in many respects. The tale of Telemachus, replete with apocrypha but with a core of historical truth, seems an excellent example of this.

On the other hand, the enormous leverage provided by a promise of life eternal amid crystal fountains beyond golden gates, if only one meekly accepted one's lot in this life and turned the other cheek until the dirt was turned over oneself, made an excellent 'slave religion' indeed.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Where's the point that shows that Christianity today, or even back then, supported the casual use of war? "

I don't know about "back then", and I don't have a chip on this particulr round of craps, but I'd say that the USA 1898 invasion of the Phillipnines invoked the name of Chriwstianity in a certifiably casual war.

This doesn't make Xtianity a 'war religion', but it does show that it cn be used as such.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Less of a masterpiece? Them's fightin words! (I worship Graves... He made me love Roman history [Big Grin] )

ED - "were not all Roman religions, therefore, war mongering?"

Um, yeah. No-one is denying that. Mars was second only to Jove in the Roman pantheon, and enemy leaders who were captured used to be slaughtered on the steps of Capitoline Jove's temple.

"Where's the fact that demonstrates that Christianity was any MORE war mongering than of its contemporaries?"

That's your standard? Not to be more bloody-minded than the pagans? That's a lofty goal [Big Grin]

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ed, good post, not withstanding Ricky's accurate criticisms.

IMO Christianity was far less of a war mongering religion than its contemporaries. It began steeped not just in Hebrew thought, but in Hebrew thought as filtered by 70 years of Roman Occupation. And not just Hebrew thought as filtered by the occupation, but also as filtered through the eyes of the poor. It was the religion of the outcasts, the poor and the supressed; which is why when it spread to the Greeks it appealed primarilly to the poor and opressed within the Roman Empire.

When it first articulated itself, it did so from the pens of Hebrews most of whom were illiterate in Greek, to a community that untill after 70 AD was still majority Hebrew, and universally poor. And those first articulations, or course, constituted a major part of their religious cannon.

Through the Second and Third centuries, Christianity became infused with Greek thought, but it continued to do so as a religion of the poor and periodically persecuted. Cytania's caricature neglects this important period of doctrinal development, which -importantly - was continous with what preceded and what followed.

In the fourth century, it is true, Christianity enjoyed a favoured status, and adapted to its needs as a religion of Empire, although this had little impact on Jerome (whose demons were personal), but in the Fifth Century, Christianity's greatest theologian (Augustine) cut his doctrinal teeth on responces to persecution, and wrote his greatest work in responce to the sack of Rome. Christianity was again a religion of people dispossessed of political power.

Cytania's caricature is bizzare. Out of five formative centuries, he picks one moment when Christians were dispossessed by war, and one when they gained it and decides the later is determinative of Christianity. In the mean time he ignores the history of doctrinal development through fat periods and lean for Christians.

Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Most of the problem seems to come from titling a thread The Origins of Christianity which essentially ignores its first three hundred years. That is rather like a book titled The Origins of the United States which ignores everything before 1900. Calling the thread The Origins of the Christian State would reflect its point of view better.

One well known Christian vision of life after death occurs in Dante's Divine Comedy describing the poet's imaginary journey through hell and purgatory and heaven. This can be compared to Homer's vision of Odysseus meeting the shades of the dead, epitomized by Achilles' words:
quote:
'Don't try to comfort me about my death,
glorious Odysseus. I'd rather live
working as a wage-labourer for hire
by some other man, one who had no land
and not much in the way of livelihood,
than lord it over all the wasted dead.

Few people today would take either vision seriously; but in effect Homer describes a vision of life after death in which, in comparison to Dante's vision, everyone goes to hell. While some Calvinists come close to saying that anyway, the mainstream Christian outlook has always been more positive. So skeptics may doubt Christians really know anything about the matter; but they must also admit Homer painted a picture no better supported, and more discouraging. If many people preferred the Christian outlook, that seems natural to me. But I am quite willing to admit that neither the vision of Dante nor the use of the cross by Constantine ever had much to do with the life or teaching of Jesus.
Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Liberal
Member
Member # 2888

 - posted      Profile for Liberal   Email Liberal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
One of the reasons Christianity was chosen were its striking similarities to Mithraism, which was the religion of much of the armies. Mithraism was a "warrior's religion." In Mithraism there is a chief God Mithra, who battles against a slightly weaker counter-god who is evil (the devil). The creation story of Mithraism actually somewhat mirrors the creation story of genesis in some regards, so the writers of the early books of the bible doubtlessly drew many elements from it.

An excavation site of a Roman temple in Britain revealed that an altar had a swiveling centerpiece that on one side pictured the Toroctony(sp?) and on the other side pictured Jesus in the manger.

[ October 20, 2006, 10:21 PM: Message edited by: Liberal ]

Posts: 228 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pickled shuttlecock
Member
Member # 1093

 - posted      Profile for pickled shuttlecock   Email pickled shuttlecock   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Liberal:
The creation story of Mithraism actually somewhat mirrors the creation story of genesis in some regards, so the writers of the early books of the bible doubtlessly drew many elements from it.

Wait... Genesis borrows from Mithraism? I think you're probably a few thousand years off on the origins of the Bible.
Posts: 1392 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Liberal
Member
Member # 2888

 - posted      Profile for Liberal   Email Liberal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mithraism originated in 7th century BC, there is nothing to show that the genesis texts truly predate that.
Posts: 228 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 2212

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Where's the evidence to show that Mithraism predates Genesis?
Posts: 2061 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@ RickyB:
quote:
Um, yeah. No-one is denying that. Mars was second only to Jove in the Roman pantheon, and enemy leaders who were captured used to be slaughtered on the steps of Capitoline Jove's temple.
And I never said nobody was denying it. My intention was to point out that the behaviors that Cytania is using to mark Christianity were a product of _the times._

quote:
That's your standard? Not to be more bloody-minded than the pagans? That's a lofty goal [Big Grin]
It was Cytania's contention that Christianity was "born in blood," he needs to show how it was so any more than any other creed. Since I know he can't prove it, I thought I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. [Wink]


@ hobsen:
quote:
Most of the problem seems to come from titling a thread The Origins of Christianity which essentially ignores its first three hundred years. That is rather like a book titled The Origins of the United States which ignores everything before 1900. Calling the thread The Origins of the Christian State would reflect its point of view better.
That's because it appears that he is only interested in condemning Christianity, not in actually examining it's origins.

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That's your standard? Not to be more bloody-minded than the pagans? That's a lofty goal [Big Grin]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It was Cytania's contention that Christianity was "born in blood," he needs to show how it was so any more than any other creed.

Uh, no he doesn't. All he has to do is show it was born bloody at all. It has nothing to do with the 'other' religions of that time or any other. If all religions were born in blood then it wouldn't mean that Christianity wasn't.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ahhh...the refreshing stench of religion.

Wallow in sh!t and gain purity.

Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pickled shuttlecock
Member
Member # 1093

 - posted      Profile for pickled shuttlecock   Email pickled shuttlecock   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Once again, canadian has demonstrated his talent for rational, polite, and honest discourse with a most perspicacious and sensible comment that resounds with penetrating wit and dazzling cleverness.

My eyes. They are not worthy. [Roll Eyes]

quote:
Originally posted by Liberal:
Mithraism originated in 7th century BC, there is nothing to show that the genesis texts truly predate that.

So you take the earliest possible estimate of the origin of Mithraism and pair it with the latest possible estimate of the origin of the Old Testament in order to make your claim?

In statistical terms, if you're going for a maximum-likelihood estimate, you're going about it all wrong. The overlapping area of two distributions' tails is generally very, very small. The only way to justify it is to start with a fantastically strong bias.

Edited for grammer.

[ October 21, 2006, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: pickled shuttlecock ]

Posts: 1392 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Liberal
Member
Member # 2888

 - posted      Profile for Liberal   Email Liberal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Even if you took a mid-point for both Mithraism and Christianity, Mithraism would still pre-date the earliest written works of Christianity. I admit one problem with this is the lack of written works on it, but since christianity never even existed until the time of christ (0+/- BCE) it clearly predates it by a good several hundred years.

[ October 21, 2006, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: Liberal ]

Posts: 228 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Mithraism originated in 7th century BC, there is nothing to show that the genesis texts truly predate that."

"Even if you took a mid-point for both Mithraism and Christianity, Mithraism would still pre-date the earliest written works of Christianity. I admit one problem with this is the lack of written works on it, but since christianity never even existed until the time of christ (0+/- BCE) it clearly predates it by a good several hundred years"

Umm... genesis is a judaic text. While mithraism clearly predates christianity, it does not clearly predate the "earliest texts of christianity," since the earliest texts of christianity are judaic, and judaic texts have existed for at least 2500 years, and possibly as much as 3000.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Liberal
Member
Member # 2888

 - posted      Profile for Liberal   Email Liberal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes Everard, I was trying to distinguish Mithraism from the Christianity that Constantine imposed onto the Romans, which was very much focused on the New Testament aspects.

As to the Judaic part its anyone's guess which came first but the earliest dead sea scrolls don't reach back quite that far.

Posts: 228 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Even if you took a mid-point for both Mithraism and Christianity, Mithraism would still pre-date the earliest written works of Christianity. I admit one problem with this is the lack of written works on it, but since christianity never even existed until the time of christ (0+/- BCE) it clearly predates it by a good several hundred years.
Wait, are you talking about the New Testament or Genesis?

edited to add: ahh, late. My son got me distracted before I could finish my post.

[ October 21, 2006, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: LoverOfJoy ]

Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Yes Everard, I was trying to distinguish Mithraism from the Christianity that Constantine imposed onto the Romans, which was very much focused on the New Testament aspects."

But also included genesis. And your earlier post specified genesis. if you are saying genesis is borrowing from mithraism, which was your original claim, then christianity is IRRELEVANT. You need to talk only about genesis. And genesis is independent of christianity.

In other words, your logic train got so messed up that you have a currently incoherent position. You might want to rephrase, admit you are wrong, or admit you don't know what you're talking about.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Liberal
Member
Member # 2888

 - posted      Profile for Liberal   Email Liberal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
"Yes Everard, I was trying to distinguish Mithraism from the Christianity that Constantine imposed onto the Romans, which was very much focused on the New Testament aspects."

But also included genesis. And your earlier post specified genesis. if you are saying genesis is borrowing from mithraism, which was your original claim, then christianity is IRRELEVANT. You need to talk only about genesis. And genesis is independent of christianity.

In other words, your logic train got so messed up that you have a currently incoherent position. You might want to rephrase, admit you are wrong, or admit you don't know what you're talking about.

Seems like you are getting pretty aggressive, maybe take a break?

My position is very clear, coherent, relevant, etc. [Smile]

Try to follow this, ok? Yes I did include genesis, because right now there is no clear example of written genesis that predates the earliest known existence of Mithraism.

With Christianity it is clear (and the reason I stipulated christianity is because the cross was a huge symbol in Mithraism before 0 BCE as well as other major christian new testament symbols) that Mithraism predates. There is also a major lack of evidence for the detailed theology of Judaism to predate the known existence of Mithraism, which was not as complex or developed as either Judaism or Christianity.

Posts: 228 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Try to follow this, ok? Yes I did include genesis, because right now there is no clear example of written genesis that predates the earliest known existence of Mithraism."

Your original statement in this logic train is that genesis drew on mithraism.

" The creation story of Mithraism actually somewhat mirrors the creation story of genesis in some regards, so the writers of the early books of the bible doubtlessly drew many elements from it."

You then say

"Mithraism originated in 7th century BC, there is nothing to show that the genesis texts truly predate that."

You then defend the position with

"Even if you took a mid-point for both Mithraism and Christianity, Mithraism would still pre-date the earliest written works of Christianity. I admit one problem with this is the lack of written works on it, but since christianity never even existed until the time of christ (0+/- BCE) it clearly predates it by a good several hundred years."

The logic train is a wreck because the earliest writers of the tanakh (you know, the people who wrote genesis) predated christianity by a minimum of 500 years. So using christianity as a marker point for when genesis was written has no relevence.

If you want to defend the position that mithraism influenced genesis, then you need to show that the creation story of mithraism predates JUDAISM, not christianity.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Liberal
Member
Member # 2888

 - posted      Profile for Liberal   Email Liberal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I didn't use this statement
quote:
"Even if you took a mid-point for both Mithraism and Christianity, Mithraism would still pre-date the earliest written works of Christianity. I admit one problem with this is the lack of written works on it, but since christianity never even existed until the time of christ (0+/- BCE) it clearly predates it by a good several hundred years."
to prove this
quote:
"Mithraism originated in 7th century BC, there is nothing to show that the genesis texts truly predate that."
Please follow the discussion more closely, there were several posts in between dagonee's and mine and there is noc elar reason to believe I was addressing his since his name does not appear in my message nor do I preface that remark with anyone that links it to his question. If anything it should be obvious the remark is addressing the several posters who were still disputing the obvious position of Mithraism predating christianity.


As to genesis, I will state that it's fairly obvious that Mithraism existed, in crude primitive form, before any written works of Judaism that we know for sure existed were written. One additional problem was Mithraism's gnostic status which in large part precluded any major written texts about it by its members.

[ October 21, 2006, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: Liberal ]

Posts: 228 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The only way to justify it is to start with a fantastically strong bias.

I'm willing. [Razz] [Wink]

KE

[ October 21, 2006, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I did follow it closely, liberal. You obviously didn't, because people were baffled by your claim that mithraism influenced genesis. You then said that mithraism pre-dated the earliest written works of christianity (which is, again, genesis).

If what I'm saying you were doing isn't what you were, in fact, doing, you need to clarify your statements with regard to mithraism, genesis, and christianity, because I don't think anyone else understands what you're trying to do either.

Or, well, it could just be you're talking making it up as you go along. Thats kinda what it looks like.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"As to genesis, I will state that it's fairly obvious that Mithraism existed, in crude primitive form, before any written works of Judaism that we know for sure existed were written. One additional problem was Mithraism's gnostic status which in large part precluded any major written texts about it by its members."

So... now your argument is that its clear that mithraism's creation story influenced the creation story of genesis, because the religion of mithraism existed prior to the earliest known examples of written works of judaism, even though we don't have the written works of mithraism prior to having the written works of judaism, even though we also have clear evidence that judaism existed before we have documented evidence of genesis existign?

Thats, again, awful logic.

Work harder at this man... you make liberals look bad when you use logic trains like these.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Liberal
Member
Member # 2888

 - posted      Profile for Liberal   Email Liberal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Any particular reason for all your hyperbole, riduculous language and jibes? Is this your usual style, I am supposed to take your repeated hostility as a joke? I am very confused. I feel like you are trying to belittle me or are trying to make me feel stupid. [Confused]

The point is more clear than you will let on, and I'm not sure why you are trying so hard to confuse a very simple point here. One of the major aspects of Mithraism is its crude and simple form, which in part probably lent toward its survival for so long without a written text. At some point, perhaps at its beginning(perhaps not), Judaism became incredibly complex, to the point of needing detailed texts written about it. It is truly easy to confirm the existence of both Judaism and Mithraism through archaelogical excavation, but Mithraism was fairly static in its simplicity, it is pretty impossible to place specific elements of Judaic doctrine(outside of descriptions of geologic instance or event) in any time context predating its earliest manuscripts.

[ October 21, 2006, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: Liberal ]

Posts: 228 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Any particular reason for all your hyperbole, riduculous language and jibes? Is this your usual style, I am supposed to take your repeated hostility as a joke? I am very confused. I feel like you are trying to belittle me or are trying to make me feel stupid."

There is no hyperbole here. Your logic train is derailed. Its bad logic.

Again, what you are doing, is saying that an un-recorded creation story must predate a creation story, because one religion existed prior to the written creation story of the other religion.

You are comparing apples and oranges. You can't say that an unrecorded mythology influences a recorded mythology, simply because the unrecorded mythology belongs to a particular religion that existed prior to earliest evidence for the RECORDED mythology.

Your logic relies on mithraism being static, and the creation story of judaism being dynamic, and coming into existence only when we have our first recorded evidence of the written creation story.

Thats terrible logic. For starters, since the creation story is fundamental to a culture that we know pre-existed the first recorded docudments of that culture, there's reason to believe the creation story is much older then our first documents that contain the creation story.

There's more wrong with your logic then just that, but if you can't see whats wrong with your comparison, there's really no helping you.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Liberal
Member
Member # 2888

 - posted      Profile for Liberal   Email Liberal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
"Any particular reason for all your hyperbole, riduculous language and jibes? Is this your usual style, I am supposed to take your repeated hostility as a joke? I am very confused. I feel like you are trying to belittle me or are trying to make me feel stupid."

There is no hyperbole here. Your logic train is derailed. Its bad logic.

Again, what you are doing, is saying that an un-recorded creation story must predate a creation story, because one religion existed prior to the written creation story of the other religion.

You are comparing apples and oranges. You can't say that an unrecorded mythology influences a recorded mythology, simply because the unrecorded mythology belongs to a particular religion that existed prior to earliest evidence for the RECORDED mythology.

Your logic relies on mithraism being static, and the creation story of judaism being dynamic, and coming into existence only when we have our first recorded evidence of the written creation story.

Thats terrible logic. For starters, since the creation story is fundamental to a culture that we know pre-existed the first recorded docudments of that culture, there's reason to believe the creation story is much older then our first documents that contain the creation story.

There's more wrong with your logic then just that, but if you can't see whats wrong with your comparison, there's really no helping you.

Actually the biggest part of your own logic in the above statement relies on the fact that the creation story as it is known influenced the culture visibly without proof of recorded history to back it up. I'm not sure if you are taking this as a given but it is far from it. The comparisson is valid since the religions are so similar, you cannot simply say my logic is bad because you think its innappropriate for an unwritten religion to influence another one whose writings come much later. That's not good debating.
Posts: 228 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Liberal. please notice your unequal stnadard: Mithraism in CRUDE, PRIMITIVE form, Vs Judaism in WRITTEN form. You said it, not me and not Ev.

You need to compare like and like. That's basic requirements, not being hostile to you. You bring it pretty hard yourself, you shouldn't be so offended when the rebuffs equal your stridence. Of course, when your argument is so flawed it stings more.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Liberal
Member
Member # 2888

 - posted      Profile for Liberal   Email Liberal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ricky, my point was that Mithraism never changed from its crude form, in fact that is one of its chief attributes.

Is it just me or are both you and Everard having a tough time reading my actual posts. I guess I shouldn't bother to speculate that you both happen to consider yourselves experts on the matter so when anyone says something close to being in disagreement with you it would offend your, ah, "sensibilities," and cause you to twist their own point into something more easily dismissable?

[ October 21, 2006, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: Liberal ]

Posts: 228 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Ricky, my point was that Mithraism never changed from its crude form, in fact that is one of its chief attributes."

Uh huh. And you know this how? And if you know that using one set of tools, then you need to apply those same tools to judaism, which is what you are comparing mithraism to. If you use different tools then your comparison is invalid.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 2212

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
there were several posts in between dagonee's and mine and there is noc elar reason to believe I was addressing his since his name does not appear in my message nor do I preface that remark with anyone that links it to his question.
So, to be clear, you haven't addressed my earlier post?
Posts: 2061 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1