[quote]Sloth wrote:
You know very well I’ve been requesting the same kind of sources, which you admit you can’t provide, beyond that of the Mithras conversation. If you’ve had to repeat yourself–that there are no such sources–without realizing your admission and exiting the conversation honorably, only the more tragic for you.[/quote]
I have provided sources of what I’ve claimed - I have no idea what new nonsense you are attempting to put into my mouth now.
I told you a few times there weren’t primary sources for Mithras and you blithely ignored it and now you are pretending that you knew this all along. You are attempting to get me to go on wild goose chases. It’s old and tiring. You can’t even admit the blindingly obvious.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
You’re right, I would delight in hammering that in. Did you feel that? That’s you coming to a realization that I AM hammering that point. [/quote]
No, that’s you realizing now what I’ve said for a few days now - you just realized there were no first hand sources for Mithralism. I’ve embarrassed you on this point.
I’m now wondering why you are trying to make a stink of it. Are you going to now claim that I’m making some claim about Mithra being born on Dec 25? Is this where you are going?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Heh. [/quote]
By all means, Sloth, expound on how it would help or hurt the case I’ve made. Do you even know what case I am attempting to make?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Um, that’s his (Jupiter) grand entrance. Did you want the author to share details of the intercourse which clearly states took place? Did he sprout out a golden phallus and plant his seed (this Jupiter we’re talking about folks)? What’s clear, as is friggen stated, is that intercourse took place. [/quote]
This is all supposition on your part. I’ve already provided evidence that the ancients reading the stories did not perceive it that way. Also, do you think the ancients were prudes or something? Seriously, they had celebrations with giant dicks. They often had sex out in the open stands of the arenas.
Now, it’s your turn to provide some evidence. While you are at it, refute the notion that Justin didn’t perceive it as I’ve said. This should be interesting. Actually, scratch that, you are going to ignore this request like you do practically everything else.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Nice.
Now, who has the poor reading comprehension? The ‘some’ doesn’t refer to a dispute over intercourse. The ‘some’ refers to who the intercourse was with. The other possible seducer being Proteus.
“When Acrisius inquired of the oracle how he should get male children, the god said that his daughter would give birth to a son who would kill him.49 Fearing that, Acrisius built a brazen chamber under ground and there guarded Danae.50 However, she was seduced, as some say, by Proetus, whence arose the quarrel between them51; but some say that Zeus had intercourse with her in the shape of a stream of gold which poured through the roof into Danae’s lap. When Acrisius afterwards learned that she had got a child Perseus, he would not believe that she had been seduced by Zeus, and putting his daughter with the child in a chest, he cast it into the sea.” [/quote]
Ah, well that’s fair enough for that passage - in the sense that some meant Proteus. However, let’s examine this:
How does one have intercourse with someone, when they are in the shape of a stream of gold? This isn’t vague, btw - this was very specific imagery here.
You might interpret that to mean that Zeus morphed into a human and plugged her, but the ancients didn’t - and as evidence, I point, once again, to Justin Martyr, whom you’ve ignored. For my argument to work, all I need to do is provide the idea that some ancients thought that it was on par with the birth of Jesus.
Some ancients did.
Therefore my argument works, regardless of whether or not you think it counts.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Pours himself into her lap, camera fades from the scene, later Acrisius learns of her pregnancy. That only, clearly, outright stated thing, is that intercourse took place. End of story on this one.[/quote]
Where was this intercourse? I must have missed it - please explain how a golden shower has intercourse in anything remotely like a human being does. Does it spurt out golden coins when it’s ‘finished’?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
You’re right, I am suggesting sex of some sort transpired as she slumbered (serpent form, or otherwise). Which is why she wakes up feeling as if it had. Note, there is no outright need to clarify that sex DIDN’T take place, though there is a plain implication made that it did. So, though we are clearly meant to get the idea that she wakes up feeling as if she’d been sexually compromised, there’s no care to BOLDY state that her feelings are wrong. [/quote]
This is all unsupported supposition. She woke up feeling the way she did because she was pregnant - she even had the symbol of a serpent on her. There is no indication that the serpent touched her - or even stayed a long period of time. Just the opposite, “On a sudden a serpent glided up to her and shortly went away”
You are adding to the text to fit your preconceived notion. That said, it’s nice that you at least admit that I provided different birth narratives.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Here, there is the absence of the word ‘intercourse’. But neither is there any seeming need to clarify the absence of sex. This, even in the face of the violated woman feeling as if that is exactly what took place. Without getting graphic, what exactly is the audience supposed to imagine these feelings, these sensations, might’ve been? A familiar sensation in the genitals (this is NOT a virgin woman, after all)? My case is far stronger than yours. I’m unsure as to why you don’t conceede this one outright, since we both realize her virginity isn’t intact, by anyone’s definition… [/quote]
Why would they need to clarify something that didn’t happen??
Let’s look at the two scenarios:
- Snake has sex with her - she feels impure.
- Snake impregnates her - she feels impure.
In both scenarios she feels impure. Only one is supported by the text though - and it’s not your version. Your version would have the snake diddling her. Presumably that would have taken time. Further, if this were the case, then why would the text later need to make it crystal clear that she was pregnant (“and at once there appeared on her body a mark in colours like a serpent”) - why mention this if sex ‘clearly took place’? In fact, if you read the rest of the passage, it seems clear that the prophecy that foretold of Augustus intended this - “Nature” was supposed to get the mother pregnant. The snake is a vehicle of this, it’s not literally meant that the snake had sex with Atia (I’ll post the passage below).
As to the whole ‘virgin’ bit, it’s tangential to my case (case being that this is a nonsexual miraculous divine union resulting in a birth), but I can’t find any thing that suggests this was not the case. Her first son was Augustus. There’s some evidence to support the notion that she would not have had sex (due to the prophecy).
What is relevant to the case I’m making is who the father was supposed to be:
“In the tenth month after that Augustus was born and was therefore regarded as the son of Apollo. Atia too, before she gave him birth, dreamed that her vitals were borne up to the stars and spread over the whole extent of land and sea, while Octavius dreamed that the sun rose from Atia’s womb.”
Here’s the passage (“he” refers to Augustus):
Having reached this point, it will not be out of place to add an account of the omens which occurred before he was born, on the very day of his birth, and afterwards, from which it was possible to anticipate and perceive his future greatness and uninterrupted good fortune. In ancient days, when a part of the wall of Velitrae had been struck by lightning, the prediction was made that a citizen of that town would one day rule the world. Through their confidence in this the people of Velitrae had at once made war on the Roman people and fought with them many times after that almost to their utter destruction; but at last long afterward the event proved that the omen had foretold the rule of Augustus. According to Julius Marathus, a few months before Augustus was born a portent was generally observed at Rome, which gave warning that nature was pregnant with a king for the Roman people; thereupon the Senate in consternation decreed that no male child born that year should be reared; but those whose wives were with child saw to it that the decree was not filed in the treasury, since each one appropriated the prediction to his own family. I have read the following story in the books of Asclepias of Mendes entitled Theologamena
So, you’ve got prophecies, you’ve got a divine birth, and a ‘king’ son who does miraculous things. Not a mirror image, but the point is the ideas were already there.
You, Sloth, have been arguing against the notion that Christianity took everything from one place and took it verbatim. I say ‘look here are some similar miracles’ and you say ‘big deal’.
Well, yeah, it’s not a big deal if you don’t think Christianity is unique.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
You can repeat all day long. When you actually lay something out, I’ll work in the time to respond. [/quote]
I have layed something out - I doubt you will respond. Frankly, I’m tired of waiting. Your behavior is very trollish.
Answer the following, in terms of similarities:
With regard to birth narratives of Pagan and christian sources, do you admit:
The impregnation did not involve sexual union in all cases - do you agree?
They were born - you agree?
They had God’s as fathers - do you agree?
They were divine figures - do you agree?
With regard to baptism, do you admit:
- That ancient christian apologists admitted that Pagans used baptism (Tertullian, and Justin Martyr in particular)?
- That this baptism had a similar purpose to Christian baptism, in that it was for the remission of penalties/to make the initiate holy again - an act of purification?
With regards to the Eucharist, do you admit:
- That ancient Christian apologists admitted that Pagans used baptism (Justin Martyr, for example)?
- That the Eucharist was similar in both?
Old Testament Similarities:
- The narrative of Jesus running away and the slaughtering of the first borns is from the Old Testament (Moses).
General theme:
- Do you agree that the ideas behind Christianity were not new and were not unique?
I will be repeating these until you deal with them. I’m not trying to introduce new material until you at least face the old material.
