Page 7 of 7

PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 1:05 pm
by Minimalist
Yes...not only a derivative but a poorly phrased derivative, too.

That would be bad.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 11:14 am
by Minimalist
Arch has so far avoided replying to the initial Z-ism post. He does that a lot with things that he does not understand and which hold the potential to upset his litte Holy Applecart.

I shall now provoke him with the second shot about xtianity.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 11:24 am
by Ishtar
Well good luck with that. :wink:

PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 10:03 am
by Minimalist
I've basically finished the parts of the book which interest me.....modern Z-ism is no more fascinating to me than any other religion...even though they have been steadily marginalized by the Islamic wave which washed over the country.

Boyce's POV regarding the dating of Zoroaster himself...assuming he was real and not just some legendary founder, like Moses, also seems solid. Even if he was not 'real' the legends that grew up had to come from somewhere and 1,500 BC puts them in a position to influence Judaism in the aftermath of the Babylonian Exile and by extension Christianity.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 11:05 am
by Ishtar
But the disappointing thing is you'll never get certain fundies to accept it, no matter how rational, learned and informed your argument. :cry:

PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:40 pm
by Minimalist
Oh, to be sure.

When in doubt they fall back on the Doctrine of Diabolical Mimicry...a/k/a Thedevildidit.

PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 7:56 am
by Ishtar
People won't believe what they don't want to believe.

PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 9:16 am
by Minimalist
He fell back on "all their texts are from after Christ." Typical. They actually use the same argument for all the Mystery Cults, (Mithras, Isis, Tammuz) which did not have written texts, either. In fact, the oral transmission of "sacred stories" seems to have been far more common.

PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 9:25 am
by Ishtar
But ...Tammuz (also known as Dumuzi) is dated to 3,000 BC. He's Ishtar's consort in The Descent of Ishtar (in some versions, Inanna) which is inscribed in cuneiform on the Babylonian clay tablets.


... tablets discovered in 1963 show that Dumuzi was in fact consigned to the Underworld himself, in order to secure Inanna's release,[3] though the recovered final line reveals that he is to revive for six months of each year (see below).

In cult practice, the dead Tammuz was widely mourned in the Ancient Near East. A Sumerian tablet from Nippur (Ni 4486) reads

"She can make the lament for you, my Dumuzid, the lament for you, the lament, the lamentation, reach the desert — she can make it reach the house Arali; she can make it reach Bad-tibira; she can make it reach Dul-šuba; she can make it reach the shepherding country, the sheepfold of Dumuzid

"O Dumuzid of the fair-spoken mouth, of the ever kind eyes," she sobs tearfully, "O you of the fair-spoken mouth, of the ever kind eyes," she sobs tearfully. "Lad, husband, lord, sweet as the date, [...] O Dumuzid!" she sobs, she sobs tearfully.[4]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammuz_%28deity%29

PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 9:34 am
by Ishtar
Isis - first mention of in Egypt during the Fifth Dynasty - 2400 to 2300 BC.


First mentions of Isis date back to the Fifth dynasty of Egypt which is when the first literary inscriptions are found, but her cult became prominent late in Egyptian history, when it began to absorb the cults of many other goddesses. It eventually spread outside Egypt.


Mithras is in the Rig-veda - c. 3,000 BC.

All of the above - Tammuz, Isis and Mithras, have written attestation.

PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 12:20 pm
by Minimalist
But ...Tammuz (also known as Dumuzi) is dated to 3,000 BC.



You must know that Arch denies uncomfortable facts. I can look at the obvious derivation of xtian thought from Zoroastrianism but he cannot.