|
Sartrian -> RE: Thinking of converting to Buddhism (4/24/2008 1:36:12 AM)
|
quote:
i understand that the conservative estimates on zoraster is around the 6th century BC. and that the oldest attested greek form of the word around the mid-th century BC. other dates; however, attest a much later date, as argued by james damesteter pushing for something around 100 BCE. of course others argue a much, much earlier date.
Actually, considering that Zoroaster wrote in Old Avestan, which is a language very similar, but less archaic than ancient Sanskrit, modern historians generally concede that he lived around the tenth or eleventh century BCE. The sixth century BCE idea was an early idea from around the 1800's, and has been roundly dismissed by modern Persian historians.
quote:
the avesta, of course, is the text of zorastrians, and the earliest manuscripts which also contain the gathas date from around the 13th century CE, the majority around the 17th century CE.
Nope. The Gathas, the holy psalms supposedly written by Zoroaster himself, date back to the same time period as when Zoroaster lived-- the period when Old Avestan was spoken. Other parts of the Avesta and the Vendidad (another Zoroastrian holy text) were compiled later, and in Young Avestan. However, Young Avestan is a very old language as well, only petering out around the 8th century BCE.
quote:
i'm not positive of any early date for "on nature".
I imagine the text, if written by Zoroaster, would date to the tenth or eleventh century BCE.
quote:
and i say all this, because of the well known late date of any surviving manuscripts, and this tradition being used as a backdrop for critique. because, rationally, the argument doesn't sustain itself (that the one with the oldest framents must be inaccurate and borrowing from other sources, whilst the newest fragments must be authentically passed down through history through the community).
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say. Could you clarify?
quote:
secondly, herodotus's writings do not mention zoraster, but of the greater iranian society, with some that may be features of zorastrian influence. i also understand the oldest fragment of the history to be around the 4th century CE.
Herodotus mentioned the Towers of Silence, the sacred disposal of the dead in the Zoroastrian religion. While he never mentions Zoroaster, by mentioning the traditions that Zoroaster began, he makes note of Zoroaster by proxy.
quote:
it is suggested that plato plagarized, but again we have the issue with who may be quoting whom (if of course, that is even the case in the first place). the earliest fragment of the repulic that i'm aware of is the 3rd century CE.
"Most common to the tales or motifs borrowed from the Magi were those dealing with visits to the Underworld. Plato concluded his Republic with such an account, known as the myth of Er. Colotes, a philosopher of the third century BC, accused Plato of plagiarism, maintaining that he substituted Er's name for that of Zoroaster. Clement of Alexandria and Proclus quote from a work entitled On Nature, attributed to Zoroaster in which he is equated with Er. Quoting the opening of the work, Clement mentions:
'Zoroaster, then, writes: "These things I wrote, I Zoroaster, the son of Armenius, a Pamphylian by birth: having died in battle, and been in Hades, I learned them of the gods." This Zoroaster, Plato says, having been placed on the funeral pyre, rose again to life in twelve days. He alludes perchance to the resurrection, or perchance to the fact that the path for souls to ascension lies through the twelve signs of the zodiac; and he himself says, that the descending pathway to birth is the same. In the same way we are to understand the twelve labours of Hercules, after which the soul obtains release from this entire world.'"
--The Complete Online Library of Ancient Sources "The Chaldean Magi"
quote:
now, i don't write all of this to downplay iranian history or tradition, only to point out that it is highly irrational to use this form of logic as a critique of hebraic or christian documents in and of itself.
This has been a very interesting discussion, but personally, I don't think that the Zoroastrians are any more correct than the Abrahamic faiths. My mentioning of the Zoroastrians originally was to show that using the survival of the Jews throughout the ages as an argument for god was irrational.
quote:
i'd tend to agree that 'logic' is seemingly (at best) at odds with spirituality. however, most folks, agnostics and atheists included, live in community (often better than others) - that is to say, the individual is not the sum of the whole. there is something 'more', or 'greater' in the fabric of existance that compels us to think of others before ourselves. that we are not the "center" of creation. with that in mind, i'd suggest that everything is "spiritual", though contemporary, and well-published "christian" folks may not see it as such, often purporting a very self-centric ideology themselves, that doens't mean that their interpretation, their teachings, and their particular community is an authentic reflection of the message of jesus.
I think that if you were to cut away the Tanakh, the references to magical miracles, Paul's cruel rantings, and the sheer lunacy of Revelations, a lot of Jesus's comments could be perfectly moral examples of humanism.
quote:
Well, as the Civil war encompassed thousands, perhaps millions of people across a continent, that would make sense; but they were all people involved in the event, so it doesn’t contradict what I said.
The Tanakh says that the Israelites utterly destroyed the Jerichoans after a miracle and a bloody genocide. Yet, we have no record from the Jerichoans. Why should I belive the Israelites' testimony, considering that they not only aggrandized their military record, but lied about the destruction of the city of Ai, which, according to modern archaeology, had been abandoned nearly a thousand years before the Tanakh records Johsua came and destroyed it?
Now, if we had a record from the other side, like from the Jerichoans, or the supposed people at Ai, the stories of the Tanakh might become clearer, and less biased, but until then, the story remains just that-- a story, factually inaccurate, biased towards the people writing it, designed to aggrandize their culture in an iron-age setting.
quote:
Well, unlike the Civil war, the writing of the Constitution was a more intimate affair; who could best chronicle its writing?
I don't know, maybe the French Revolutionaries who modeled their Constitution on the American's, after several Americans went to go aid the Revolution?
quote:
And as the Christians were being killed, first by Jews, and later by the Romans, what ’vested interest’ would there be in a verifiable lie?
If the sky had suddenly turned dark, the earth had shaken, the dead had risen from their graves, and the veil at the Temple had rent spontaneously, don't you think that SOMEBODY would have written that down other than the people who claimed it was the work of their god? Even if they had claimed it was Jupiter's doing, the Romans would have at least mentioned it. The Jews would have at least mentioned it. Yet, nothing like that happens in any sort of Jewish or Roman history. So what then?
quote:
Evidence of this? Besides the Da Vinci code that is.
"*In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus' cleansing of the Temple occurs during his final week in Jerusalem before the Crucifixion; in John, it occurs at the beginning of his ministry, several years before the crucifixion.
*In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus is tried before the whole Sanhedrin; in John, he is subjected only to a private interview with Annas and Caiaphas.
*In the Synoptic Gospels, the Last Supper is a Passover Seder, and Jesus is executed on the first day of the Feast of the Unleavened Bread (15 Nisan); in John, the Last Supper is not a seder, and Jesus is executed on the day of preparation, when the lambs were slaughtered for the Passover feast (14 Nisan).
*In the Gospel of John, Jesus stated that he spoke nothing in secret(John 18:20). In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus spoke and did things secretively so that the multitudes should not understand him( Mark 4:10-12, Mark 8:29-30, Matthew 13:10-11, Matthew 16:20,Luke 8:9-10,Luke 9:20-21).
*In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus refuses to give any sign that he is the messiah, which is known as the Messianic Secret, for example Mark 8:11-12. In the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke, only the Sign of Jonah will be given (Matthew 12:38-39,16:1-4, Luke 11:29-30). The Gospel of John on the other hand has Jesus providing many signs, such as 2:11 and 2:18-19 and 12:37, perhaps from a hypothetical Signs Gospel source.
*Jesus carried his own cross (19:17); in the synoptics the cross was carried by Simon of Cyrene (Mark 15:21, Matthew 27:32, Luke 23:26).
"On the other hand, some of the deleted books were written with great authenticity and contained no actual heresy, but they made the Church look bad by mixing honest doctrine with ideas that might appear foolish or shocking. For example, the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians was originally included as part of official Church scripture but was later deleted -- the objection being that Clement likens Christ's resurrection to the rising of the Phoenix from its own ashes. This might have been fine had he referenced the Phoenix as a mythological being, but instead he refers to it as a real bird that existed in the physical world. Readers might draw the conclusion that Christ and his miracles, also referenced by Clement, had no more reality than the imaginary Phoenix."
"The Gospel of Peter, for example, was struck for the following heretical passage: 'And they brought two criminals and crucified the Lord between them. But he himself remained silent, as if in no pain.' In the minds of Church leaders, the assertion that Jesus showed no sign of pain could have been used to back up Docetae assertions that the body of Jesus was not material (i.e. of flesh and blood), but rather a mere phantom or spiritual projection. The text was therefore excluded from scripture. Meanwhile modern scholars protest that the passage actually aligns with references in Isaiah 53:7 about the silence of the 'suffering servant'. Hence, Christ's supposed silence during the crucifixion could more rightly be viewed as a testament to his forebearance and his obedience to his 'heavenly father'"
"Thus the Gospel of Peter finally re-entered public awareness after a portion of it was discovered in a codex buried with a monk in Akhmîm, Egypt in 1886. This serendipitous find would foreshadow the later discovery of the Gospel of Thomas in Egypt in 1897. Fragmented, the Gospel of Thomas would not be more fully known until 1945 when a complete version in Coptic (an Egyptian language written in Greek derived alphabet) was discovered at Nag Hammadi. (Note that later, in 1958, the caves of Qumran yielded up the oldest Old Testament scrolls ever found, as well as other writings which date to the same era as New Testament works.)"
"When it was discovered, The Gospel of Thomas greatly intrigued religious scholars as it differed markedly from the canonical gospels handed down by the Church. Unlike the Gospels of Luke, Matthew, Mark, and John, it does not attempt to tell the story of Jesus' life, but rather shares a collection of his sayings. These aphorisms were apparently collected by the apostle Thomas during his time with Jesus and in some instances represent 'inner teachings' which Jesus shared -- perhaps exclusively -- with him. The Gospel of Thomas presents a mystical, one might even say metaphysical, side to the teachings of Jesus, placing an emphasis on inner knowing (i.e. through direct attunement to God via the spirit self). No doubt this encouragement to seek spiritual guidance within the self was threatening to Church leaders, who naturally wanted to be in control of spiritual doctrine and, through it, the way in which people acted."
quote:
Also, I find it odd that there would be 25 to 30 records of someone who you claim no non-Christian wrote about.
If I could indulge in a little imagination, I would guess that there was probably some mystic Rabbi who wandered around teaching people radical religious messages, and ended up getting killed by his opponents. His followers recorded his adventures with embellishments, and over time, the whole thing snowballed, becoming an endlessly rewritten, heartwarming coming-of-age story about a boy named Jesus who was born of a virgin and ended up saving the world with the power of love and a small alien named Quazmodiar.
quote:
Well, as there are about six different brief Roman writings total from the time of Christ, and as Jesus was a rather minor figure who died a criminal’s death, would we expect anything of significance to be written by outside sources?
Six. Right. I have an entire book of Catullus's poetry from 60 BCE, and you're telling me that the Romans, a very literate people, left only six pieces of writing in all of Judea that we've discovered? I call shenanigans. And besides, if Jesus got around as much as the Gospels say he did, fighting the power and preaching radical messages, meeting with the Governor of the Judea province, eventually causing terrible upsets in nature upon his death, he wouldn't have been just some criminal. He would have been like Butch Cassidy. The Romans, the Jews, they would have both known who he was and recorded his actions.
quote:
Well, yes, we already know what they were supposed to do; but the fact is they almost never obeyed these commands. Even one of their greatest leaders, Solomon, was said to have a multitude of foreign wives.
Did you...perhaps ignore the fact that I mentioned over a dozen bloody genocides the Israelites engaged in at the behest of their insane tribal god? They obeyed his commands with all the eagerness of an SS battallion-- killing every living thing in the city-states except the little girls, who they raped. All of this was encouraged by Moses, Joshua, and the priestly caste, ostensibly acting on their god's behalf. Solomon was quite possibly one of the least evil people in the Tanakh-- I mean, the man was the first leader to practice diplomacy, opened up his country to religious and cultural diversity, and didn't stigmatize sex. His disobedience to the priestly caste may have made him a bad figure in the Tanakh, but to anyone with common sense, he was probably the best leader Ancient Israel ever had. Mostly because he avoided genocide.
quote:
Again, the ‘priests and theocrats’ don’t come off in the recorded histories any better than anyone else; indeed, usually they led the people into worship of idols (starting with the very first one, Aaron) so my thesis holds; the history isn’t ‘self-serving’ at all.
So the priests get a few examples of what not to do. It's not that impressive. Any insular organization will have strict rules for its members that are upheld with strict punishments. Aaron and the few other negative priests are only presented in order to show other priests what'll happen to them if they break their tribal god's rules.
|
|
|
|