Re: ABH Re: update
I too have had posts to the biblical studies group NOT posted, and without
any explanation. Probably because the posts were controversial. The ONLY
posts that do get posted are non-controversial. The group seems rather tame
and quiet with few postings now, but I guess this inactivity suits the
moderators just fine. The list touts itself as un-moderated, but experience
shows that in effect it IS moderated and censored.
----- Original Message -----
From: "historynow2002" <historynow2002@...>
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 12:13 AM
Subject: ABH Re: update
> I'm trying to follow what you mean in your post below.
> Ironically, I arrive at a different conclusion about
> what happened to the Biblical Studies eGroup list.
> I reduced my postings there because the moderators began
> to impose what I considered to be an unreasonably restrictive
> moderation policy. No doubt they applied this same "protocol"
> on some other posters.
> Thus, there is hardly any vigorous debate there.... because the
> moderators don't seem to ALLOW vigorous posts.
> If I understand your post correctly, you have mistaken the
> CAUSE for the EFFECT.
> --- In AncientBibleHistory@y..., "briansullivan" <briansullivan@o...>
> > Dear Richard,
> > Thankyou for this post.
> > I had been swamped with c1000 emails and only today found it
> amongst "the
> > pile." In my catch up reading I felt similar.
> > I enjoy George,s posts but have sadly seen the Biblical Studies
> list gutted
> > of its once enthusiastic posters following strong minded debates
> > himself and an other poster. I do not believe it is "censorship" to
> > topics inline with the majority of the group if the style of debate
> > its overall spirit.
> > We are both in the NC group. Cami does an excellent job in
> controlling the
> > forum but those who have OC opinions articulate excellent points. I
> for one
> > have some reservations but robust debate can include good manners.
> > Thank you for your well worded post.
> > Yours Most Sincerely,
> > Brian Sullivan
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: richardabbottuk [mailto:Richard@a...]
> > Sent: Monday, 21 October 2002 3:04 AM
> > To: AncientBibleHistory@y...
> > Subject: ABH Re: update
> > Dear guys and girls,
> > I'm sorry to disrupt the general air of warm congratulations on this
> > thread, but I feel I must disagree. As a list we are not very
> > welcoming to folk expressing opinions outside quite a narrow range,
> > and my assessment is that we have driven away, or else reduced to
> > silent lurking, through intolerance, people who have expressed
> > radically different points of view. We permit regular posts of a
> > religiously biased and inflammatory nature (if anyone seriously
> > doubts this I recommend they look back at the archives for the last
> > week) which have nothing to do with historical matters. Conversely,
> > factual matters which happen to support a more "conservative" view
> > are dismissed on the grounds that they are faith-based.
> > The front page reads (amongst other things) "This is a Historical
> > Forum and absolutely -NOT INTENDED- for church promotion or
> > religious/non-religious bias. Absolutely non-denominational. No
> > proselytizing. Good list manners are strictly enforced!" but I do
> > feel this is not the experience of many. For example, we
> > don't "strictly enforce" anything.
> > The origin of this thread was that Mr Gould (who I have never met,
> > nor subscribed to his list, before anyone accuses me of bias)
> > expressed a feeling that he ahd been abused on this list. He gave
> > specific examples and appealed to the Yahoo T&C (which do exist
> > whether we individually like it or not). My own feeling (for what
> > it's worth) is that we do more to serve inter-personal relationships
> > by being willing to apologise to him rather than try to justify
> > ourselves in our own eyes (always an easy thing to do). For my part
> > have absolutely no hesitation in offering him such an apology.
> > Like it or not, the ABH list - taken collectively and not
> > the opinions of individuals - does adopt a supportive line on some
> > theories of Biblical interpretation (such as late composition), and
> > hostile view on others (such as early composition). That is the
> > reality of matters. Like any list, we (again speaking collectively)
> > have an angle, a preferred position. So let's not kid ourselves that
> > we are a neutral, all-embracing discussion group able to warmly
> > welcome anyone whatever their views.
> > Again, sorry to break up the self-congratulations - but I do feel it
> > is important to be real about these matters rather than kid
> > All the best,
> > Richard
> > http://www.abbottfamily.clara.net
> > ANCIENT BIBLE HISTORY WEBPAGE:
> > http://www.angelfire.com/or3/ancientbiblehistory/
> > ABH GROUP PAGE:
> > http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/AncientBibleHistory
> > PUBLIC ARCHIVES:
> > http://www.eScribe.com/religion/AncientBibleHistory/
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> ANCIENT BIBLE HISTORY WEBPAGE:
> ABH GROUP PAGE:
> PUBLIC ARCHIVES:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
- ....And also with Michael, or Adam, the father of all, the prince of
all,the ancient of days. (LDS scripture)
--- In AncientBibleHistory@y..., Lars <siaxares@y...> wrote:
> Hello John,
> Thanks for the research on Mithras; it's informative to hear what
> scholars are saying, even if they don't all agree. So I'll just
> regress to the beginning in restating that in Eden, these two
> Satan and Michael (who became the Christ) were pitted against one
> another, Michael and his seed versus the Devil/the woman and his/her
> seed. This battle, approrpiately, is prophesied in the last book of
> the Bible, Revelation, where we find, quite simply, "Michael and his
> angels" battling against Satan, the "original serpent" and his
> at which time Satan and his angels are cast out of heaven and down
> the earth. In the meantime, the prophecy of Eden included a
> reference that, indeed, the Satan/woman/serpent would bruise Michael
> in his heel, meaning at his first coming he would kill him. But
> sacrifice, having died sinless and blameless would provide life to
> the world.
> Thus the generic theme of Eden includes the death of Jesus at the
> hands of Satan, but through that death, life to a dying world. This
> is a very fundamental theme that finds various expressions in the
> "mysteries" including the theme of the dying king which took on the
> symbolism of the seasons where the king dies in the winter along
> vegegation and is raised back up in the spring when all things are
> new, etc., etc.
> The mythology of Mithras might have some specific twists and turns
> it, but the basic theme remains; Satan kills Jesus and the result is
> regeneration. With that very fundamental theme, I don't see it very
> difficult to identify the sacrifice and the killer in the Mithraic
> Finally as far as your comment regarding merely depicting the
> lion-headed Ahiram with Mithras not confirming a continuity with
> Ahiram, I'll just note that the lion-headed/snake infoiled God has a
> prominent place in the mithraic iconography and whether Mithras is
> opposing him or helping him would be an issue of debate. But in
> regard, I do see, as noted, that the LION KILLING THE BULL THEME,
> a strong Iranian theme already. Thus in the iconography I can
> see that Mithras is opposing the bull where the Lion does that
> elsewhere. For you to suggest, therefore, that the bull is
> representing Ahiram and evil in the iconography and thus the bull
> the lion become one, is a bit of a stretch for me; especially since
> others seem to presume the representation is a background identity
> for Mithras,the lion-serpent, who is now consistently doing what the
> Devil/serpent in other representations does, which is kill the
> On the other hand, it is much easier (at least for me) when seeing
> the Lion-headed god in the background of the mitraic iconography
> while seeing Mithras slaying the bull to understand that Mithras is
> simply replacing the Lion here and this is just an extension of the
> Lion vs bull theme that was already well established in Persian
> culture and which has a more ancient root in other cultures of the
> Middle East. The lion-headed god stands above him and behind him,
> while the bull is beneath him. Am I misreading something? Or are
> those who think Mithras and the evil one are different the ones
> Remember, Satan appears as an "angel of light" and deceives the
> As far as your reference as to why Christians who know about this
> pagan connection between Mithras and December 25th or even the pagan
> fertility goddess and Christmas trees, I leave it to you to answer
> that. The Christians in general know that Christmas trees not only
> has nothing to do with Christ but they very well know it came from
> pagan ritual. But if you present this to "Christians" they simply
> note it has a different meaning for them and thus it is now
> "Christianized". So basically, many "Christians" don't care or
> it doesn't matter, explanation sufficient for the symbiosis between
> pagan ritual and pseudo-Christianism. But this is considered the
> "apostasy" and the "mystery" of that apostasy that would take over
> Christianity that even started before the apostles began to die off.
> But, that's how the Devil works.
> --- John <jdcroft@y...> wrote:
> > Lars wrote
> > > The above reference identifies a form of Mithras as the
> > Lion-headed
> > > god entwined by a snake as others have.
> Do you Yahoo!?
> HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now