The Jesus Mysteries

[John T]

Before you leave this thread, go over what Freke and Gandy actually said about the amulet in their book:

The reason for this bizarre book is just as bizarre as their reasoning. "It was a drawing of a third-century CE amulet. We have used it as the cover of this book. It shows a crucified figure which most people would immediately recognize as Jesus. Yet the Greek words name the figure Orpheus Bacchus, one of the pseudonyms of Osiris-Dionysus....The "chance" discovery of this amulet made us feel as though the universe itself was encouraging us to make our findings public."....The Jesus Mysteries pg 12-13.

Close reading always pays dividends. It's not enough just to say that it is "bizarre" and give up. Basically they are saying it is on the cover because it is striking. They don't make much use of it in their book. (I can't remember what exactly they do in their book, and I don't have it any more, but I do remember this much. The amulet on the cover truly existed, even though it is enhanced with color, but they don't attempt to use its alleged third century provenance as much of an argument.)

"Mythicism" is part of the subject of "Christian texts and history."

If you wanted to talk about Arianism, starting a thread about it might be a good way to get there.

******************************
It just so happen I still have a library copy of; "The Jesus Mysteries". I'm seriously thinking about buying a copy of it because I suspect it is the handbook of the mythicists. It is truly a work of sensationalized propaganda.

The picture on the cover of; "The Jesus Mysteries" has been doctored, no if's and or but's about it! To prove it, all you have to do is go to the insert picture between pages 152 and 153 and you can see the black and white photo of the so-called amulet that they based their pseudo-thesis on. The altered/added lettering and altered image on the book cover compared to the photo is obvious. Either way, their so-called amulet has nothing to do with the crucifixion of Jesus, although they want you to believe otherwise.

Their key physical evidence behind the whole mythicist theory is premised on the so-called missing link amulet being what they say it represents.

"For us, [Freke & Gandy] however, this amulet was perfectly understandable. It was an unexpected confirmation of the Jesus Mysteries Thesis. The image could be that of either Jesus or Osiris-Dionysus. To the initiated, these were both names for essentially the same figure."...pg 13

Now, since they have had to admit they can't provide the actual amulet (or others like it) and have been forced to retract their initial asserted connection/history of the amulet to Jesus, then why should you take their Jesus Mysteries Thesis, seriously?

Why the double standard for evidence by the mythcists?

If I provided on the cover of a book, a doctored picture of a scarecrow does that prove the; Jesus is a corn-god thesis?
If I provided on the cover of a book, a doctored/fuzzy picture of Bigfoot and a plaster-cast of his so-called footprint, does that prove the; Bigfoot is a space alien from planet Nibiru thesis?

They weren't just asking questions in their book they were asserting they knew the truth. They had literally hundreds of footnotes and the couple that I wasted my time checking out were either junk throw-away and/or misleading.

I agree with you when you wrote; 'close reading always pays dividends'. So, I direct you give a close reading to their claim: "The more we studied the various versions of the myth of Osiris-Dionysus, the more it became obvious that the story of Jesus had all the characteristics of this [Osiris-Dionysus] perennial tale."...pg 5

Rubbish!

You are much smarter than that Peter, much, much smarter.

Do you sense my frustration more clearly now?

John T

[neilgodfrey]

The picture on the cover of; "The Jesus Mysteries" has been doctored, no if's and or but's about it! To prove it, all you have to do is go to the insert picture between pages 152 and 153 and you can see the black and white photo of the so-called amulet that they based their pseudo-thesis on. The altered/added lettering and altered image on the book cover compared to the photo is obvious.

You did read that the black and white photo is of a plaster cast of the amulet (not the amulet itself) and the cover picture is said to be a copy of a drawing of the amulet, didn't you?

[neilgodfrey]

John T, I am surprised you have not yet drawn attention to the most pernicious and hypocritical deliberate lies of all, blatantly intended to knowingly deceive the gullible, where Freke and Gandy have the gall to write:

We did, however, have misgivings about writing this book. We knew that it would inevitably upset certain Christians, something that we had no desire to do. . . . Yet we do not have some sort of anti-Christian agenda. Far from it. . . .

[We see Jesus Mysteries] as suggesting that Christianity is in fact far richer than we previously imagined. p. 13

[Peter Kirby]

Before you leave this thread, go over what Freke and Gandy actually said about the amulet in their book:

The reason for this bizarre book is just as bizarre as their reasoning. "It was a drawing of a third-century CE amulet. We have used it as the cover of this book. It shows a crucified figure which most people would immediately recognize as Jesus. Yet the Greek words name the figure Orpheus Bacchus, one of the pseudonyms of Osiris-Dionysus....The "chance" discovery of this amulet made us feel as though the universe itself was encouraging us to make our findings public."....The Jesus Mysteries pg 12-13.

Close reading always pays dividends. It's not enough just to say that it is "bizarre" and give up. Basically they are saying it is on the cover because it is striking. They don't make much use of it in their book. (I can't remember what exactly they do in their book, and I don't have it any more, but I do remember this much. The amulet on the cover truly existed, even though it is enhanced with color, but they don't attempt to use its alleged third century provenance as much of an argument.)

"Mythicism" is part of the subject of "Christian texts and history."

If you wanted to talk about Arianism, starting a thread about it might be a good way to get there.

******************************
It just so happen I still have a library copy of; "The Jesus Mysteries". I'm seriously thinking about buying a copy of it because I suspect it is the handbook of the mythicists. It is truly a work of sensationalized propaganda.

The picture on the cover of; "The Jesus Mysteries" has been doctored, no if's and or but's about it! To prove it, all you have to do is go to the insert picture between pages 152 and 153 and you can see the black and white photo of the so-called amulet that they based their pseudo-thesis on. The altered/added lettering and altered image on the book cover compared to the photo is obvious. Either way, their so-called amulet has nothing to do with the crucifixion of Jesus, although they want you to believe otherwise.

Their key physical evidence behind the whole mythicist theory is premised on the so-called missing link amulet being what they say it represents.

"For us, [Freke & Gandy] however, this amulet was perfectly understandable. It was an unexpected confirmation of the Jesus Mysteries Thesis. The image could be that of either Jesus or Osiris-Dionysus. To the initiated, these were both names for essentially the same figure."...pg 13

Now, since they have had to admit they can't provide the actual amulet (or others like it) and have been forced to retract their initial asserted connection/history of the amulet to Jesus, then why should you take their Jesus Mysteries Thesis, seriously?

Why the double standard for evidence by the mythcists?

If I provided on the cover of a book, a doctored picture of a scarecrow does that prove the; Jesus is a corn-god thesis?
If I provided on the cover of a book, a doctored/fuzzy picture of Bigfoot and a plaster-cast of his so-called footprint, does that prove the; Bigfoot is a space alien from planet Nibiru thesis?

They weren't just asking questions in their book they were asserting they knew the truth. They had literally hundreds of footnotes and the couple that I wasted my time checking out were either junk throw-away and/or misleading.

I agree with you when you wrote; 'close reading always pays dividends'. So, I direct you give a close reading to their claim: "The more we studied the various versions of the myth of Osiris-Dionysus, the more it became obvious that the story of Jesus had all the characteristics of this [Osiris-Dionysus] perennial tale."...pg 5

Rubbish!

You are much smarter than that Peter, much, much smarter.

Do you sense my frustration more clearly now?

John T

I am reminded of the famous saying about Diogenes the Cynic:

He lit a lamp in broad daylight and said, as he went about, "I am looking for an honest man."
- Diogenes Laërtius, vi. 41.

Let us know when you find your honest man.

I agree that the book is "sensationalized," that the cover photo is "altered," and that some of the footnotes could be "misleading."

Your own additional quote confirms my memory that the amulet was not the centerpiece of their argument:

So, I direct you give a close reading to their claim: "The more we studied the various versions of the myth of Osiris-Dionysus, the more it became obvious that the story of Jesus had all the characteristics of this [Osiris-Dionysus] perennial tale."...pg 5

Which says nothing at all about an amulet or any other artwork.

When you say:

I suspect it is the handbook of the mythicists

You've gone off the rails. There is no handbook, but if there were, this book surely would not be it. Poor Freke and Gandy had the limelight taken from them by the superior expositions of others in the 21st century. One suspects that even some of "the mythicists" can tell popular pablum when they see it--though not all, as we witness in this forum on a daily basis.

In any case, this is fairly dreadful business. You are asking for the metaphorical hanging of Freke and Gandy, of Carrier, of Acharya, etc. In each case you point to this or that bit of what they have written and tear it down as less than good, perhaps even quite bad. Unfortunately it is a fallacy then to say that the conclusion they reach is disproven or even that they haven't made a good argument for it somewhere. It is just poor form to play the wag who can pick apart others on this or that bit but never undertakes to present an argument, or even a refutation, in full.

When can we expect your thread on Arianism or any of the other topics you say you'd rather discuss? I'd welcome it.

[DCHindley]

The scare quotes around "chance" in the phrase 'The "chance" discovery' tells me the authors were aware of controversy over the amulet's authenticity.

[John T]

I know there is no point in beating a dead horse so, this will be the last time to try to convince Peter that, it is not I that has gone off the rails but Freke & Gandy.

The link below is a video, (very well put together) on mythicism/gnosticism. Go the the 52 minute mark and watch/listen as Freke and Gandy explain why their so-called amulet is hugely important to their thesis. They claim that the amulet combined with the myth of Dionysus is conclusive evidence that the Jesus story as we have it, is taken from mythology.

The interviewer asks: "Why did you [Freke & Gandy] put this crude imagine [so-called amulet] on the front of your book?

Answer: "This piece of evidence was hugely important for us. It is a talisman or amulet and tiny, about the size of my thumb. It shows what you would think is Jesus on the cross yet it has a Greek inscription that it is the pagan, dying and resurrected god Dionysus."

They go on to claim: "This discovery that Dionysus could have meet his death in exactly the same way Jesus was later claimed to have died; for us it was conclusive evidence that the Jesus story as we have it is taken from mythology."

In their mythological dreams!

The myth of Dionysus (wine god) is not even close to being a match to the historical account of the crucified Jesus.

Even if the amulet was real , still, in no way does it prove that: "The Jesus story as we have it is taken from mythology."...Freke & Gandy.

It is Freke & Gandy's wild and reckless speculation that has gone off the rails, not I.

This mythological horse is dead, dead, dead!

http://youtu.be/eM9-8qj_Js8

John T

[slevin]

Even if the amulet was real , still, in no way does it prove that: "The Jesus story as we have it is taken from mythology."...Freke & Gandy.

I am uneducated, John, I have never read Freke & Gandy. I have never even glimpsed a picture of this amulet. No idea what it shows. I don't need any amulets to know that Jesus is a myth.

My position is much simpler than the story you are relating. I have no "handbook" of mythology that I follow, to deduce that the Jesus story elaborated in the Gospels is taken from Greek and Egyptian and Persian and Jewish mythology. You have only to open your eyes, and read the ancient texts, to observe the inter-relationship for yourself. That's what I am doing. At the moment I am reading a story about Anahita, the Indo Persian goddess from 3000 years ago.

Here's just a few points from gMark and gJohn:
"son of God". (Mark 1:1) what's that John? Is that physics? Quantum Mechanics? Hydrodynamics? No, John, that's nonsense. I have no need for a handbook of mythology to recognize that "son of God" is mythical.
"raised Lazarus from the dead". (John 11:14) John, is that environmental toxins? Birth defects associated with genetic anomalies? Current methods in cardiac perfusion by pump? Nope. that's more nonsense.
"cured blindness with spittle". (Mark 8:23) Really, John? is that a technique to improve synthetic rubber? A method to harvest silk without worms? A novel procedure to develop orange trees impervious to bacterial disease? Nope, just more nonsense. We don't cure epilepsy with hand waving, nor blindness with spittle, John. The person who wrote that, in the gospels, was writing fiction, not fact. Are you that gullible, John?

It isn't by reading Carrier, or Freke and Gandy, or Price, or Acharya, or anyone else, that we can discern the profoundly mythological character of the gospels. You simply need to read the gospels themselves.

Some folks on this forum agree with you, arguing that Jesus must have existed as an historical person. Those folks, including my own family members, ask me to prove that Jesus did not exist!!!

Where's Jesus' paternal DNA, John? Who documents it? What I have read is that "pneuma" engaged in a bit of late night revelry with a young teenager, and Jesus emerged nine months later, "according to the law". I have no proof that Jesus did not exist. What I have is a fundamental understanding of human genetics. There is no way for the "wind", or "spirit" to impregnate anyone.

[Peter Kirby]

The interviewer asks: "Why did you [Freke & Gandy] put this crude imagine [so-called amulet] on the front of your book?

Answer: "This piece of evidence was hugely important for us. It is a talisman or amulet and tiny, about the size of my thumb. It shows what you would think is Jesus on the cross yet it has a Greek inscription that it is the pagan, dying and resurrected god Dionysus."

They go on to claim: "This discovery that Dionysus could have meet his death in exactly the same way Jesus was later claimed to have died; for us it was conclusive evidence that the Jesus story as we have it is taken from mythology."

Nice find.

So, what would you like to talk about next?