I found this book to be highly entertaining.The main argument in this book is that Jesus was originally a disciple of John the baptist and that when he was beheaded,Jesus took over his movement which is why for example was stated in Mathew 9:36-(NIV)”When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd”.He also argues among other things that the eucharist was based on mithraic traditions and that it was instituted before the last supper as was stated in John 6:56(NIV):”Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them”.The result is that most disciples left him thereafter….
amigobarber said
I found this book to be highly entertaining.The main argument in this book is that Jesus was originally a disciple of John the baptist and that when he was beheaded,Jesus took over his movement which is why for example was stated in Mathew 9:36-(NIV)”When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd”.He also argues among other things that the eucharist was based on mithraic traditions and that it was instituted before the last supper as was stated in John 6:56(NIV):”Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them”.The result is that most disciples left him thereafter….
Hi, amigo. The name of the author rang a bell, but I couldn’t quite place it. So I did what Robert did and ran to Wiki. I still don’t remember how I first came across the name. But clearly she isn’t a scholar.
There is so much we don’t know about early Christianity. But that pales in comparison to what we don’t know about the Mithraic mysteries. Those folks left virtually no written records, just a lot of nice art and some references to them by others.
So if Pickett’s book is a good read, that’s great. But I wouldn’t put much stock in it.
When it comes to speculation about Mithraism, I’d leave it to t folks with a little more heft like David Ulansey and his Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Now that’s a good read whether Roger Beck says so or not.
Imagine trying to explicate the doctrines and practices of Christianity if all you had was iconography and a few fragments of hymns or prayers? What was the relationship between the guy being crucified and the woman holding the infant? What did the dove or the fish mean? Think how metaphorically rich the image of the fish is in Christian writings. How much of that could you intuit just from an image?
Look how much trouble there is even with deeply sacred books that make some attempt at explanation. I wonder if it would be worse, or easier to explain without them. On the one hand, there would be no establishing documents to claim as authority; on the other hand the absence of such documents would eliminate the problems of trying to make them agree in a way they simply don’t. And yet, even with their problems and disagreements, those sacred books do serve as a check on total chaos of everyone just making up their own traditions, even if it does little to hold people back from making up their own interpretations. This is perhaps the appeal of mysticism; the whole thing works best with a large degree of mystery.
Robert said
argued that Leonardo da Vinci not only faked it, but used his own face for the model of Jesus, overlooking the fact that the first exhibition of the Shroud of Turin, authentic or not, was in 1357, almost one century before the birth of Leonardo.
This made my day. How does one get a book to press without anyone realizing its thesis was plagued by such a bleeding obvious hole?
Look how much trouble there is even with deeply sacred books that make some attempt at explanation. I wonder if it would be worse, or easier to explain without them. On the one hand, there would be no establishing documents to claim as authority; on the other hand the absence of such documents would eliminate the problems of trying to make them agree in a way they simply don’t. And yet, even with their problems and disagreements, those sacred books do serve as a check on total chaos…
Ancient religions without sacred texts were usually liturgical – rituals, festivals and such – and had a sacred story associated with them. But then regular folks didn’t worry over that stuff. That was what the priest was for. You showed up to the event, made your offering, socialized, enjoyed the spectacle and took from it whatever solace you required. A combination of an opera, a barn dance, a Chautauqua tent meeting, and maybe an orgy. So folks if you’re exploring your religious beliefs your only choice isn’t grim churchless atheism. There’s plenty of room for a pagan revival!
My favorite story about sacred books is from a sect of Jainism which claimed to have a sacred book which they subsequently lost.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)