Mythicism: Two Theories

[Leucius Charinus]

Thanks for all that post Shesbazzar ....

The latter Roman Latin translation (Vulgate) places a stress on 'de cruce' and 'crucifix' ('the Cross') and 'crucify/crucified' that is quite alien to the sense and idiomatic conveyance of the ancient Hebrew and Greek words. This fact may be observed in translations and wordings of the older pre-Vulgate Hebrew and Greek renderings;

///


All that the authentic ancient Hebrew and Greek vorlage requires, is that such death be upon, or by the means of wood. (no need of any nails or rope either) any common 'tree', or any manner of wood implement from a bare wooden 'stake' to an elaborate wooden rack as long as death is by means of, or even followed by being upon "wood".

The Latin didn't need for communication purposes, to employ the terms 'de cruce' 'crux' or 'crucifix', it was a religious selection which supported the emergent iconography and 'crucifix' icon adoration/worship which had in the 4th century CE been adapted and adopted from the Imperial cult usages by syncretizing and pandering Roman Catholicism.
Kiss the Emperors royal icon, kiss the Emperors royal @$$.

The author of the Vulgate - Jerome - was "tutored" under the strong wings of Pontifex Maximus Pope_Damasus_I who renovated the catacombs and started the "PETER WAS HERE" business in Rome plus the trade in relics etc. These people were very inventive. The Vatican turnstiles are still turning.



LC

[Sheshbazzar]

It is often forgotten what a huge impact the Imperial Roman form of the Christian religion had upon the lands and peoples held under her iron grip.
Usage of Vatican approved Latin lingo of the Vulgate in any public discussion of Christ or Christianity was perforce de rigueur, that is, strictly enforced by Roman religious authorities, backed up by the swords of the governments which they held control over.
Quite literally it was a "You recite this, _and exactly this_, and word for word, exactly as we instruct you .....or else", world under the Imperial Roman Catholic boot.
Altering or omitting even as little as a single letter, or not conforming to a demanded speech inflection could cost one their life.

Think about it. If it had not been for the Latin Vulgate, and the bloodied swords of generations of the Roman Legionnaires and their Papal continuators enforcing strict conformity to its Latinisms, the world of today would not even be employing such Latin lingo terms as 'crucify', 'crucified', and 'crucifix'.
Having maintained the Greek terms (and underlying Hebrew idioms) as our basis, we would be saying such things as 'Stauroō him!' hang him on a stauros! and 'Remember the stauroō of Iasus o'christus'.

The world is where the world now is. But we as well educated men, do not need be controlled by, nor conformed to the ignorance of the ignorant of the world, but be renewed by the refreshing of our minds, in attaining accurate knowledge of things past, that we might with clarity of vision behold and comprehend the workings of things present, and perceive things approaching.
Control of language and words, is the control and domination of the populace.

.

[John T]

Gakuseidon posted: "Inanna qualifies as "crucified" under that definition. John T, might be best if you read Carrier and then quote him directly if you want to discuss is views."...Gakuseidon

******************

Discuss whose definition; Carrier's, Webster's or Strong's?
I propose we do all.

Carrier's definition of crucify is contrived (made up) in order to justify his bizarre myticist theories. That should go without saying but since you will insist I prove his deception yet again, let's proceed shall we?

As a reminder as to what started this all; Carrier claims that Christianity is a rip-off of several ancient myths of dying and rising gods. He points out that gods rising from the dead after a crucifixion is not new and goes all the way back to 1,700 B.C. with the Egyptian myth of Inanna. Carrier briefly describes the myth of Inanna where she descended into the lower world and was bewitched under a death spell and then "nailed up, basically crucified". Then after 3 days she was brought back to life by her minions who feed her the food and water of life.

You can see Carrier explain it all at the 13 minute mark.
http://youtu.be/79UAYyMYk7I

Of course the Inanna myth is all based on astrology but that is not the point Carrier is asserting. He is asserting that Christianity lifted the myth and grafted parts of it into the myth of Jesus.

Now when you take the time to actually look up the myth of Inanna you will learn that she was never nailed up or basically crucified as asserted by Carrier but instead hung from a hook. As you read the entire myth from start to end you will quickly see the myth of Inanna has very little similarity to Christianity and/or the crucifixion of Jesus. Keep in mind Carrier claims his version is the straight scoop and if you doubt him you can find all the evidence in his latest book where it is verified via "thorough scholarship citations."

So now, did Gakuseidon or Ulan for that matter provide the scholarship citations? No! Instead in defense of Carrier he cuts & paste the lame excuse Carrier uses in his book for not telling the truth about the myth of Inanna.

"I shall mean by crucifixion (and 'being crucified' and all other cognate terms and phrases) as any hanging up of the living or dead as a punishment, regardless of the exact details of how."...Carrier

Carrier goes on to twist, exaggerate and conflate the basic meaning of crucify into his personal definition. Then he warns; if you don't accept his new and improved personal definition of crucify then you are being too fas­tidious.

Unlike Carrier, I believe words mean things and if people change the basic meaning of words (worse yet, after the fact) as an excuse for why they repeatedly mislead their audience then we have a right to question their honesty or sanity.

Crucify: To execute by nailing or binding to a cross and leaving to die...Webster's
Crucify: A pole or cross used as an instrument of capital punishment...Strong's 4717
Crucify: Any form of punishment/embarrassment that I want it to mean...R.C.

It should be noted, nay, stressed, that Carrier did not say (during his circus tours) Inanna was "hung from a hook" but instead she was: "nailed up; basically crucified".

IMHO this was no mere accident but a deliberate attempt to mislead. His deliberate attempt to change the basic definition of crucify is proof he knows the difference.

Yet, even after all this, the Carrier supporters will act as if it never, ever happened.

John T

[Ulan]

Ulan posted: "Your [John T] use of an actual example, the Inanna myth, was pretty unusual in that you actually made a factual argument for once, even if you botched it. No, unlike you, I actually do know what Carrier said."...Ulan

****************************

Actually, you Ulan still show you don't know what Carrier said during his lecture.
Because it was Carrier that said Inanna was "nailed up or basically crucified" (not me) yet, the myth of Inanna does not show that.

Can you focus on what Carrier actually said and not what you guess he said or meant to say?

If so, either Carrier is extremely sloppy in his research or he deliberately mislead his audience, thinking no one would bother to fact check him.

John T

You didn't even read my post. You are completely hopeless. I even dealt with this point, and it's irrelevant to our specific discussion.

[John T]

Ulan posted: "Your [John T] use of an actual example, the Inanna myth, was pretty unusual in that you actually made a factual argument for once, even if you botched it. No, unlike you, I actually do know what Carrier said."...Ulan

****************************

Actually, you Ulan still show you don't know what Carrier said during his lecture.
Because it was Carrier that said Inanna was "nailed up or basically crucified" (not me) yet, the myth of Inanna does not show that.

Can you focus on what Carrier actually said and not what you guess he said or meant to say?

If so, either Carrier is extremely sloppy in his research or he deliberately mislead his audience, thinking no one would bother to fact check him.

John T

You didn't even read my post. You are completely hopeless. I even dealt with this point, and it's irrelevant to our specific discussion.

Actually, I read your post more than once to make sure I got you right.

"Forget about the "crucified" it's the "humiliation" part that's important for the point he makes. Which is the point I made that Carrier made with the Inanna myth. Which means you have proven time and again that you actually don't know what Carrier says or not."...Ulan

Although you made some good points on your agreement with Carrier's mythicist ideology, however most of your comments were not specific to my point that Carrier is not being factual/truthful on how Inanna was supposedly killed but instead you appear to want to gloss over 'crucify' and suggest that it is the equivalent for 'humiliation'.

That only makes sense if you didn't bother to watch what Carrier actually said during his lecture. So, I stand by my assertion that you are simply basing your opinion on a guess of what you hope Carrier meant to say instead of what he actually said.

I suppose it is completely hopeless to get you to actually watch what Carrier said?

If I got you wrong please list the authors of those scholarly citations that agree with Carrier that Inanna was "nailed; basically crucified" instead of being hung on a hook.

Thanks in advance.

John T

[GakuseiDon]

So now, did Gakuseidon or Ulan for that matter provide the scholarship citations? No! Instead in defense of Carrier he cuts & paste the lame excuse Carrier uses in his book for not telling the truth about the myth of Inanna.

"I shall mean by crucifixion (and 'being crucified' and all other cognate terms and phrases) as any hanging up of the living or dead as a punishment, regardless of the exact details of how."...Carrier

Carrier goes on to twist, exaggerate and conflate the basic meaning of crucify into his personal definition. Then he warns; if you don't accept his new and improved personal definition of crucify then you are being too fas­tidious.

Unlike Carrier, I believe words mean things and if people change the basic meaning of words (worse yet, after the fact) as an excuse for why they repeatedly mislead their audience then we have a right to question their honesty or sanity.

I'd grant your point if Carrier had gone on to write in his book something like "Inanna was crucified, Jesus was crucified -- significant parallel!" But Carrier doesn't (at least in his book; his lectures might be different.) He doesn't assign any significance that they were both "crucified", but rather the significance is in the myths as a whole (descend from heaven, humilitating deaths, then ascension.) He could have used another word instead of "crucify" for Inanna and his point would not be affected.

[MrMacSon]

... the significance is in the myths as a whole (descend from heaven, humilitating deaths, then ascension.)

Good summary point of Carrier's position.

[John T]

So now, did Gakuseidon or Ulan for that matter provide the scholarship citations? No! Instead in defense of Carrier he cuts & paste the lame excuse Carrier uses in his book for not telling the truth about the myth of Inanna.

"I shall mean by crucifixion (and 'being crucified' and all other cognate terms and phrases) as any hanging up of the living or dead as a punishment, regardless of the exact details of how."...Carrier

Carrier goes on to twist, exaggerate and conflate the basic meaning of crucify into his personal definition. Then he warns; if you don't accept his new and improved personal definition of crucify then you are being too fas­tidious.

Unlike Carrier, I believe words mean things and if people change the basic meaning of words (worse yet, after the fact) as an excuse for why they repeatedly mislead their audience then we have a right to question their honesty or sanity.

I'd grant your point if Carrier had gone on to write in his book something like "Inanna was crucified, Jesus was crucified -- significant parallel!" But Carrier doesn't (at least in his book; his lectures might be different.) He doesn't assign any significance that they were both "crucified", but rather the significance is in the myths as a whole (descend from heaven, humilitating deaths, then ascension.) He could have used another word instead of "crucify" for Inanna and his point would not be affected.

He could of, should of, would of, but didn't?
I found other examples of him deceiving his atheist/mythicist audience in the same way, even after his new book came out.

So, I take it you can't verify Carrier's claim that his new book has scholarly citations that Inanna was "nailed; basically crucified"?

Why do I belabor this point? Because it is just laughable to what extent mythicists will go to in their attempts to deny a historical Jesus. Verifiable facts matter not to them but instead only the promotion of their disdain for Christianity.

Yeah, I got it, so why not just admit the obvious?

John T

[cienfuegos]

So now, did Gakuseidon or Ulan for that matter provide the scholarship citations? No! Instead in defense of Carrier he cuts & paste the lame excuse Carrier uses in his book for not telling the truth about the myth of Inanna.

"I shall mean by crucifixion (and 'being crucified' and all other cognate terms and phrases) as any hanging up of the living or dead as a punishment, regardless of the exact details of how."...Carrier

Carrier goes on to twist, exaggerate and conflate the basic meaning of crucify into his personal definition. Then he warns; if you don't accept his new and improved personal definition of crucify then you are being too fas­tidious.

Unlike Carrier, I believe words mean things and if people change the basic meaning of words (worse yet, after the fact) as an excuse for why they repeatedly mislead their audience then we have a right to question their honesty or sanity.

I'd grant your point if Carrier had gone on to write in his book something like "Inanna was crucified, Jesus was crucified -- significant parallel!" But Carrier doesn't (at least in his book; his lectures might be different.) He doesn't assign any significance that they were both "crucified", but rather the significance is in the myths as a whole (descend from heaven, humilitating deaths, then ascension.) He could have used another word instead of "crucify" for Inanna and his point would not be affected.

He could of, should of, would of, but didn't?
I found other examples of him deceiving his atheist/mythicist audience in the same way, even after his new book came out.

So, I take it you can't verify Carrier's claim that his new book has scholarly citations that Inanna was "nailed; basically crucified"?

Why do I belabor this point? Because it is just laughable to what extent mythicists will go to in their attempts to deny a historical Jesus. Verifiable facts matter not to them but instead only the promotion of their disdain for Christianity.

Yeah, I got it, so why not just admit the obvious?

John T

You also seem to have completely ignored Sheshbazzar's post.

[John T]

cienfuegos posted: "You [John T] also seem to have completely ignored Sheshbazzar's post."...cienfuegos

Nope, it is just that he didn't warrant a response. You may be impressed that he spent 12 hours looking up the Vulgate meaning of the word 'crucify' but it took me less than 12 minutes to look it up in English and Greek.

Now, if Sheshbazzar posted about how 'hook' and 'nailed' are cognates for crucifixion, well then, that would warrant a response.

Please note I also reserve the right not to respond to smart-alack comments.

Sincerely,

John T