Bushbadee wrote:
> I do not think you are aware of may serious Historians today.
> I would suggest to you as I have suggested many times before in this
group
> that you read "The Jesus Mysteries" by Freke and Gandy.

This is exactly what I mean! "The Jesus Mysteries" represents a fringe
position. We're talking about serious scholarship, and you put forth
some popular conspiracy theory book. Why not cite this "Pagan origins"
position from recent peer reviewed journals on NT studies and/or
Christian history?

> > Your credentials as a historian are in serious doubt. You simply
make
> > assertions about Pagan origins or Christ being a myth,
>
> I made no such assertion.

You asserted just that! On December 23rd you wrote the following:

"I will cut this short and say  Christianity is now Judiasm rephrased
but it
origonally came from Pagentry".

By "pagentry" it is obvious that you mean Paganism. So yes, you did
positively assert the pagan origins conspiracy theory.

> You would have seen this list of similarities to the pagan gd
> Osiris-Dionysus
>
> Osiris-Dionysus is God made flesh, the savior and Son of God.
> . His father is God and his mother is a mortal virgin.
> . He is born in a cave or humble cowshed on December 25 before three
> shepherds.
> . He offers his followers the chance to be born again through the
rites of
> baptism.
> . He miraculously turns water into wine at a marriage ceremony.
> . He rides triumphantly into town on a donkey while people wave palm
leaves
> to honor him.
> . He dies at Eastertime as a sacrifice for the sins of the world.
> . After his death he descends to hell, then on the third day he rises
from
> the dead and  ascends to heaven in glory.
> . His followers await his return as the judge during the Last Days.
> . His death and resurrection are celebrated by a ritual meal of bread
and
> wine, which symbolize his body and blood.

Well, interesting claims. I would like to investigate this further, and
since *YOU* are the one who has positively asserted that the above is
the fact of the matter, I would like you to cite some evidence. Which
pre-Christian sources make these claims about Osiris-Dionysus? [And in
case you're wondering, "The Jesus Mysteries" is not a pre-Christian
source.]

> > http://forum.bismikaallahuma.org/viewtopic.php?p=45957#45957
>
> Bad reference Dennis.
> I went back and checked that thread.
> It seems that you came out rather poorly on that thread.
> You accused me of not presenting sufficient documentation when
> the truth was that I had presented it but you had not seen or
> read the documentation I presented

Actually, what happened was you were asked to list an individual whom
you considered a well attested first century figure, and *WHY*. You
went on to list three figures from the first century, but did not
explain *WHY* you considered them well attested (vis a vis Jesus, whom
you do not consider well attested). The names you gave were Bar Kokhba,
Rav Shammai, & Rav Akiva. All you offer now is the following:

> If you do not know enough about ancient Israelite history
> to know who these people were, I am sorry.

A convenient attempt to poison the well. I know exactly who they are.
See the following post (to the same thread!) from December 11:

http://forum.bismikaallahuma.org/viewtopic.php?p=45927#45927

It is there that I note that "two of them are well known Rabbis in the
Talmud who are often compared to one another, and the other was a man
who led a revolt against Rome". Admittedly I made a mistake (when I
said Akiva and Shamai were often compared to one another, I actually
had Hillel in mind, as per the many Talmudic passages that compared
Hillel's patience to Shamai's short temper), as Akiva is apparently one
of the Rabbis (according to the Talmud) who proclaimed Bar Kokhba
(later disdainfully called "Bar Kozeeba") to be Mashiach.

Regardless I know of these people. The question was why you consider
them well attested, and the fact remains that you continue to skirt the
issue.

> But if you study the subject you will find out who they are
> or were and why they are particularly well attested.

Case in point. *YOU* positively asserted that Jesus was not a well
attested first century figure, and so I asked you to list a first
century figure you *do* consider well attested, and *why*. You have
given the names, but presented no evidence. Your only response is the
tired bit about you not being here to do my homework for me. So you can
make positive assertions, but the rule that "he who asserts must prove"
apparently does not apply to you. This is a very common trend among
people who push the Jesus-myth polemic (which is one of the main
reasons my support for the polemic was severely weakened to the point
that I am no longer a proponent of it).
Denis Giron
http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/home.htm
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 1/6/05 10:40:20 AM