Roman records

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

>At 11:53 AM 4/16/99 -0700, Brady R. Johnson wrote:

>>>At 06:47 AM 4/16/99 -0700, Brady R. Johnson wrote:

>>>>ED TYLER

>>>>>Both Zoroaster and Krishna were historical persons, as was Jesus, most

>>>>>likely.

>>>>

>>>>BRADY

>>>>And your evidence is... what?  Zoroaster is assumed to have been an actual

>>>>person but there is no real evidence of that.  Indeed, historians don't

>>>>even agree on what century he was supposed to have lived in.

>>>>

>>>>Can't speak to the Krishna issue.

>>>Ed

>>>

>>>True, but they agree that he lived.  They can't decide upon what details of

>>>his life are fact and what are legend, but you won't find a single

>>>historical who advances the proposition that Zarathustra/Zoroaster never

>>>existed.  It's much more than an "assumption" on the part of historians;

>>>there's simply no other way to account for the available evidence, and the

>>>same is true of Jesus.  It is this failure of the mythicist position that

>>>is one reason that makes it specious at best.

>>>

>>>As for Krishna, I'm sure Joe Crea can  fill us in better than I, but I can

>>>tell you that (like Jesus) Krishna is a syncretic personality, part history

>>>and much myth.  The historical Krishna was the prince Vasudeva-Krsna, a

>>>Vrsni noble of the 5th - 6th Century BC.

>>

>>

>>BRADY;

>>You haven't answered my question about what proof of Zoroaster exists.

>>Whether unspecified others believe he did or not is irrelevant.  As you

>>know, I do not find the argument that "I can't think of any other

>>explanation" to be persuasive.  That argument boils down to "I don't know"

>>and is not evidence of anything.

>

>Ed

>

>I was disputing your assertion that the conclusion of Zoroaster's

>historicity is based merely upon the "assumptions" of historiographers.

>The evidence of Zoroaster's historicity is in the nature of the surviving

>texts, which mitigates for the conclusion that the core of Zoroastrianism

>is historical.  Want to go into specifics?

>

>What evidence is there that Zoroastrianism developed from a purely mythical

>source?


BRADY:
Yes, I'd like to go into specifics.  While no expert on the subject, I
understand that there is only a partial copy of the Zoroastrian holy book
dating from nearly 1,000 years after Zoroaster is believed to have lived,
if he lived at all.

As to what evidence there is that Zoroaster developed from a mythical
source, you tell me.  I've never stated such a proposition.  I am simply
asking what evidence there is that he DID exist.  The burden is on the
proponent of a proposition which means that if you state he did exist, you
get to prove it.

As I'v mentioned before,lack of conclusive evidence does not lead to a
conclusion, it leads to theory no matter how emphatically stated.

With respect to Jesus you've offered as evidence only general reference to
unspecified texts.  With respect to Zoroaster you've made the same
argument.  Please specify which texts you are relying on to support your
conclusions and how they bring you to your conclusion.

Bear in mind that thus far I have not stated any position on these things,
stating only that the evidence of Jesus existence (and Zoroaster's) is
scanty and inconclusive.  You have asserted that it is conclusive - or at
least compelling enough to you to support your conclusions personally.  I
am asking you to provide more than the general blandishments about the
quantity of texts, etc.

Who knows - perhaps I'll agree with you.

• Previous message: Roman records
• Next message: Krishna's reality Re: Roman records
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]