Who Is Jesus?

[HadouKen24]

Dying resurrecting Gods tend to be solar in nature...

 

Mythras is solar, but I'm not aware of any evidence showing him to have died and been resurrected. That would seem to contradict his bearing the appellation "Sol Invictus."

 

Inanna went to the underworld, but is not solar. The same is true of Orpheus. Baldr was killed, and is said to return after Ragnarok, but the sun goddess of the Norse, Sunna, is unrelated.

 

Dying and resurrecting gods do tend to be solar in nature qabalistically, but I'm not sure that's how it works out in the myths themselves.

 

The Jesus one combines a lot of Pagan myth in the later dogma (post 200) with some of the leitmotif of some of the other movements. It would appear that the Jesus myth was always syncretic as far imagery went (i.e. it stole from other cults)

 

As far as imagery, perhaps, but what about doctrine? You must remember that Christianity is a religion based on orthodoxy, and not on what symbols it happens to find useful to reach people.

 

A Jesuit of my acquaintance asserts that they regard the whole idea as stolen, and mostly from Mithras. When the knee breakers and attack dogs of 'One Universal Church' ™ admit privately that they think it's basically Emperor worship in the form of Constantine as Mithras, then I'm inclined to believe, simply because they were there from the inception...

 

It wouldn't shock me at all to find that Christianity had been hijacked by pagan ideas. Nonetheless, that doesn't mean that Jesus never existed. It just means that people misinterpreted his life in line with concepts they were more familiar with.

[Ouroboros]

I'm honestly quite surprised that so many people are claiming that Jesus' story is just a sun-god myth. I won't deny that there is influence there, but a total reduction of the Gospels to copy-catting strikes me as based on extremely shaky evidence.

I think it's wrong to say "it is just a", because the gospel story is a mix of many different mythological stories. One of them is the sun-god myth.

 

Put simply, the Bible is a collection of myths and fables written by men and Jesus never existed. Jesus is just another dying and resurrecting Sun god. Every year the Sun is said to "die" at the winter solstice and is reborn 3 days later. The 12 deciples are the signs of the zodiac.

 

But Jesus dies on Good Friday in the liturgical calender, not Dec. 21. And if the 12 disciples are signs of the zodiac... which disciple goes with which sign? And how do you know?

I think the disciple/sign reference has been lost in the deep void of history. And who really knows anything for sure.

 

But consider that there are several symbols in the gospels that play on the astrological concept.

 

Three magi that saw that a king was to be born... in the stars. And they were led by a star to the birth place. That wouldn't really be necessary by a god that is condemning astrology to have a couple of astrologers see the signs and come and give his son gifts. Very strange event, unless astrology was a part of the early religion.

 

Jesus talks about being a fisherman, and the fish symbol, which is a zodiac sign, Pisces.

 

Jesus talked to his disciples about "seing the signs in the sky", and that they could read them and know what time it was and what was going to happen based on them.

 

The Sun in the sun-worship religions was considered both the high god but also the son of the creator. (IIRC)

 

The date of death-and-resurrection is misplaced, that is true. But the spring-equinox and easter was also pagan traditions of rebirth. The plants coming back to life.

 

Hmm. Very poor scholarship. The dude never cites his sources. I have to wonder if he just made up the astrological correspondences of the Gospel; there are a lot of stories he doesn't cover. It looks to me like he just went through cherry-picking the stories that seemed to match the next sign of the Zodiac.

That could be, but he's not alone to believe this.

 

I think there is a validity to the claim, but as I said above, the gospel story have other mythological stories mixed in too, which confuses the whole interpretation. And maybe that's why so many bought into the gospel 2000 years ago. Everyone could find their own personal hero-god in there.

[Ouroboros]

As far as imagery, perhaps, but what about doctrine? You must remember that Christianity is a religion based on orthodoxy, and not on what symbols it happens to find useful to reach people.

I'm not sure about that. Doesn't the early church history tell that there were many different versions and cults of Christianity until around 300 CE? I think the number was somewhere between 2-3 hundred variants. The Niece meeting was to create the orthodoxy, rather than just look at it and see that everyone agreed. They established what was supposed to be the liturgy, and remove any dogma or idea that didn't fit.

 

And the Catholic church did incorporate many other ideas later on, like the monestaries etc. Originally it wasn't their idea.

 

It wouldn't shock me at all to find that Christianity had been hijacked by pagan ideas. Nonetheless, that doesn't mean that Jesus never existed. It just means that people misinterpreted his life in line with concepts they were more familiar with.

Well, that is true. Just because the religion is built on a whole bunch of crack, it doesn't mean that they didn't take a person to build upon. There could have been a Jesus, but as I said at other times, maybe his name wasn't Jesus but Bob, and they gave him the title "The Savior Bob" (Jesus Bob) and later they just dropped his real name, and later no one remembered it anymore. And maybe his "heroic savior" acts was that he was somewhat philosophical and had some good ideas about life, cooking and training dogs. Who knows. But the Jesus, Son of God, miracle-man with a red-cape and flying capabilities... nah, that particular verison of Jesus didn't exist. That's just made-up stories.

[Grandpa Harley]

Dying resurrecting Gods tend to be solar in nature...

 

Mythras is solar, but I'm not aware of any evidence showing him to have died and been resurrected. That would seem to contradict his bearing the appellation "Sol Invictus."

 

Inanna went to the underworld, but is not solar. The same is true of Orpheus. Baldr was killed, and is said to return after Ragnarok, but the sun goddess of the Norse, Sunna, is unrelated.

 

Dying and resurrecting gods do tend to be solar in nature qabalistically, but I'm not sure that's how it works out in the myths themselves.

 

The Jesus one combines a lot of Pagan myth in the later dogma (post 200) with some of the leitmotif of some of the other movements. It would appear that the Jesus myth was always syncretic as far imagery went (i.e. it stole from other cults)

 

As far as imagery, perhaps, but what about doctrine? You must remember that Christianity is a religion based on orthodoxy, and not on what symbols it happens to find useful to reach people.

 

A Jesuit of my acquaintance asserts that they regard the whole idea as stolen, and mostly from Mithras. When the knee breakers and attack dogs of 'One Universal Church' ™ admit privately that they think it's basically Emperor worship in the form of Constantine as Mithras, then I'm inclined to believe, simply because they were there from the inception...

 

It wouldn't shock me at all to find that Christianity had been hijacked by pagan ideas. Nonetheless, that doesn't mean that Jesus never existed. It just means that people misinterpreted his life in line with concepts they were more familiar with.

 

Sol Invictus - The conquering Sun... conquering what? Death... From the Death of the Bull (which somehow also represented Mithras and the Solar Disc, another bloody trinity) came new life... The old sun died 21st of December, the new sun, the Victorious one was born 25th December, as the days grew noticeably longer... thus dying-resurrecting.

 

As to whether the cult stole from others and the existence of the central character (Joshua Ben Joseph) are separate questions. simply because the people who sorted Christianity in to a Religion to rule an Empire from the democratic teachings of an anarchist were dishonest in their theology doesn't necessarily reflect on whether Jesus was a man or myth. The Christ is a myth... a patchwork of Apocalyptic Judaic Messianic cult and Classical Paganism; the primary audience they were trying to syncrete. I don't see how even a desultory reading of the extant texts can support the claim that Christianity in its post-Nicaean form did anything except suck up other people's tradtions to make the religion to seem all things to all men...

[qadeshet]

It wouldn't shock me at all to find that Christianity had been hijacked by pagan ideas. Nonetheless, that doesn't mean that Jesus never existed. It just means that people misinterpreted his life in line with concepts they were more familiar with.

 

That doesn't mean that Santa and the Easter Bunny never existed either. The Christian myth doesn't require a historical Jesus. Paul's epistles are the earliest Christian writings. He never mentions any teachings of Jesus, or any reported miracles. In fact, the only Christ Paul was aware of was the spiritual being he met in visions.

[Lycorth]

I think it's wrong to say "it is just a", because the gospel story is a mix of many different mythological stories. One of them is the sun-god myth.

 

That, and were there not many guys with the name of Jesus/Jeshua/Joshua who had their own little followings (not necessarily religious ones but political in nature as well)? Given that, and the lack of historical evidence outside of the Wholly Babble for "Joshua ben Joseph" (as I am currently aware), it seems to me that the protagonist of the Gospels could well be a figure made up from elements of real-life Messiah wannabes. Not god-like at all, but the socio-political saviour the Jews, under the Roman yoke, were longing for.

 

That doesn't mean that Santa and the Easter Bunny never existed either. The Christian myth doesn't require a historical Jesus. Paul's epistles are the earliest Christian writings. He never mentions any teachings of Jesus, or any reported miracles. In fact, the only Christ Paul was aware of was the spiritual being he met in visions.

 

Heh - so very true. Perhaps Jebus o' Nazareth is also just some guy's hallucination?

[Grandpa Harley]

indeed... Paul's 'vision' isn't even consistent... did he see Jesus, did he not, did the other people in the camel train hear anything or see anything or not... The only reason that a selection of Paul's letters is in the bible is that the version of the Cult created by Marcion was a clear competitor for the 'one true faith', and a powerful one at that...

[Jubilant]

[

I think that Christianity is a formalized and dogmatisised paganism. Only Judaism and Islam are truly monotheistic, while Christianity intentionally (or not) mixed in pagan symbolism, traditions and ideas into Judaism. The cross is a modified version of a zodiac symbol, the cross inside a circle.

 

 

Hmmm...are they *really* monotheistic though? The mention of other "gods" is riddled throughout the old testament. IMO, even within Judaism, there has to be (via the scriptures) a belief in other gods, but the worship of one...just another angle to consider.

 

Monotheistic: adj. believing that there is only one god

 

I don't mean to question the almighty dictionary or anything

[HadouKen24]

I think the disciple/sign reference has been lost in the deep void of history. And who really knows anything for sure.

 

"Who really knows anything for sure," indeed! It strikes me as far more likely that, rather than symbolizing the 12 signs of the Zodiac, the 12 apostles symbolize the 12 tribes of Israel. This is far more consistent with the Jewish ideas from which Christianity sprang. If there was major pagan influence, it occurred later than the arrival of the idea of the 12 apostles.

 

But consider that there are several symbols in the gospels that play on the astrological concept.

 

Three magi that saw that a king was to be born... in the stars. And they were led by a star to the birth place. That wouldn't really be necessary by a god that is condemning astrology to have a couple of astrologers see the signs and come and give his son gifts. Very strange event, unless astrology was a part of the early religion.

 

Astrology is never condemned in the Bible. In fact, we are led to believe that Daniel of lion's den fame was trained in astrology.

 

Jesus talks about being a fisherman, and the fish symbol, which is a zodiac sign, Pisces.

 

To paraphrase Freud, sometimes a fish is just a fish

 

 

Jesus talked to his disciples about "seing the signs in the sky", and that they could read them and know what time it was and what was going to happen based on them.

 

He never said that they would be able to read the stars. He said that in the time of the apocalypse, there would be "great signs in the sky." Given that most of the apostles were fairly uneducated, and couldn't even read a book, let alone the stars, I doubt that this is actually a reference to astrology. More likely, it's a reference to comets and eclipses, and the like.

 

The Sun in the sun-worship religions was considered both the high god but also the son of the creator. (IIRC)

 

Eh... I'd have to see a source on that...

 

The date of death-and-resurrection is misplaced, that is true. But the spring-equinox and easter was also pagan traditions of rebirth. The plants coming back to life.

 

Sure. But it has nothing to do with any sun-god.

 

 

I'm not sure about that. Doesn't the early church history tell that there were many different versions and cults of Christianity until around 300 CE? I think the number was somewhere between 2-3 hundred variants. The Niece meeting was to create the orthodoxy, rather than just look at it and see that everyone agreed. They established what was supposed to be the liturgy, and remove any dogma or idea that didn't fit.

 

And the Catholic church did incorporate many other ideas later on, like the monestaries etc. Originally it wasn't their idea.

 

Between 2-3 hundred variants? How does that differ from today? They're all still Christian now, and they were all still Christian then. Sure, there were doctrinal squabbles, and there were winners and losers in those political debates. But the variants that overtly brought strong pagan elements into their doctrine--and not just their liturgy--were generally small in number and recognized by many/most Christians to be illegitimate. Most Gnostic groups fit into this category. The presence of doctrinal disputes does not entail the overwhelming influence of pagan thought over and above that which is found in Paul.

 

 

 

Sol Invictus - The conquering Sun... conquering what? Death... From the Death of the Bull (which somehow also represented Mithras and the Solar Disc, another bloody trinity) came new life... The old sun died 21st of December, the new sun, the Victorious one was born 25th December, as the days grew noticeably longer... thus dying-resurrecting.

 

Sol Invictus does not mean the "conquering" Sun. That would be Sol Victens. Invictus means "unconquered." 'S where we get the word "invincible" from. If he was never conquered, then he never died...

 

I'm not aware of any Mithraic iconography depicting the death of Mithras. Where are you getting that cosmology?

 

As to whether the cult stole from others and the existence of the central character (Joshua Ben Joseph) are separate questions. simply because the people who sorted Christianity in to a Religion to rule an Empire from the democratic teachings of an anarchist were dishonest in their theology doesn't necessarily reflect on whether Jesus was a man or myth. The Christ is a myth... a patchwork of Apocalyptic Judaic Messianic cult and Classical Paganism; the primary audience they were trying to syncrete. I don't see how even a desultory reading of the extant texts can support the claim that Christianity in its post-Nicaean form did anything except suck up other people's tradtions to make the religion to seem all things to all men...

 

I think we pretty much agree on the essential matter, here. I think our main difference is a disagreement about the degree to which Classical paganism influenced Christianity.

 

 

 

That doesn't mean that Santa and the Easter Bunny never existed either. The Christian myth doesn't require a historical Jesus. Paul's epistles are the earliest Christian writings. He never mentions any teachings of Jesus, or any reported miracles. In fact, the only Christ Paul was aware of was the spiritual being he met in visions.

 

It's true that Paul only knew Jesus through visions. However, it seems unlikely that the only Christ he was aware of was the spiritual being. He did, after all, spend a good deal of time with the apostles who actually did live with Christ, according to Acts. Paul's account of the Eucharist seems consistent with the gospels, at the very least.

[Jubilant]

It's true that Paul only knew Jesus through visions.

 

According to the Bible, it's "true".

 

However, it seems unlikely that the only Christ he was aware of was the spiritual being.

 

Why? Where in the writings that are known to be Paul's, does he even once remotely appear to have known Jesus in any other way?

 

He did, after all, spend a good deal of time with the apostles who actually did live with Christ, according to Acts. Paul's account of the Eucharist seems consistent with the gospels, at the very least.

 

According to one book that was more than likely written by the same unknown author that wrote The Gospel of Luke ; the same unknown author who most likely copied from Mark. Not to trustworthy of a source if you ask me.

[mwc]

It's true that Paul only knew Jesus through visions. However, it seems unlikely that the only Christ he was aware of was the spiritual being. He did, after all, spend a good deal of time with the apostles who actually did live with Christ, according to Acts. Paul's account of the Eucharist seems consistent with the gospels, at the very least.

But according to his own letters Paul spent precious little time with the others and had no interest being taught by them about the religion. His sole authority was the visions by design it seems. This is in contradiction to what Acts tries to communicate about the situation. Which author should we believe?

 

The agreement on the eucharist could be as simple as it being a common rite coming from something like the Didache or maybe even borrowed from other mystery religions. The fact that Paul mentions it does not mean he learned it from them or vice-versa. As a replacement for the Passover Seder it is a failure since the ordering of the items is reversed (body/blood, bread/wine vs. wine/bread) so the odds it is a from a non-Jewish origin, and/or not originally intended as a replacement for this meal, becomes more probable in my opinion.

 

mwc

[HadouKen24]

Why? Where in the writings that are known to be Paul's, does he even once remotely appear to have known Jesus in any other way?

 

His constant references to Christ having had human, physical form would be a good place to start. Romans 8, for instance, or Philippians 2. I Cor. 15 not only affirms that Christ's resurrection was physical, but corroborates the story of the resurrection as found in the Gospels.

 

According to one book that was more than likely written by the same unknown author that wrote The Gospel of Luke ; the same unknown author who most likely copied from Mark. Not to trustworthy of a source if you ask me.

 

I didn't say that we should take everything in Acts at face value. I suspect that many of the events in the book are either made up, or twisted, such as the encounter with Simon Magus. However, Acts does give some support to the idea that Paul had contact with the other apostles, as do his epistles. There really isn't any evidence that he didn't have contact with them. To say that Paul was completely out of touch with the rest of the contemporary Christian leadership is pure speculation.

 

But according to his own letters Paul spent precious little time with the others and had no interest being taught by them about the religion. His sole authority was the visions by design it seems. This is in contradiction to what Acts tries to communicate about the situation. Which author should we believe?

 

How about neither? I suspect the truth is somewhere in between. It's pretty much established that Paul did, in fact, take up the issue of circumcision with the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, for instance. If Paul was unconcerned with the other Apostles, why would he do this?

 

 

The agreement on the eucharist could be as simple as it being a common rite coming from something like the Didache or maybe even borrowed from other mystery religions. The fact that Paul mentions it does not mean he learned it from them or vice-versa. As a replacement for the Passover Seder it is a failure since the ordering of the items is reversed (body/blood, bread/wine vs. wine/bread) so the odds it is a from a non-Jewish origin, and/or not originally intended as a replacement for this meal, becomes more probable in my opinion.

 

A common rite, eh? I suppose that's why, not only is Paul's wording almost exactly the same in meaning to all the synoptic Gospels, but his version and Luke's version are verbatim. That indicates very strongly that Paul had contact with synoptic teachings.

 

Saying that it's from a non-Jewish origin just because the order is off is far too hasty. Why is the order that important?

 

If you're going to say that the commonality might have come from the Didache or some precursor document, I'm going to have to question whether you've actually read the Didache.

[mwc]

How about neither? I suspect the truth is somewhere in between. It's pretty much established that Paul did, in fact, take up the issue of circumcision with the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, for instance. If Paul was unconcerned with the other Apostles, why would he do this?

The issue at hand seemed to be did he learn what he did from the others or did he get it from the visions? Taking up the issue of the circumcision shows that he did not simply defer to their authority or accept whatever teaching came from Jerusalem. Paul's authority was Paul via the visions.

 

As for why he might confront others over teaching that didn't align with his own, well, orthodoxy versus heresy is all in the eye of the beholder and rather commonplace don't you think?

 

A common rite, eh? I suppose that's why, not only is Paul's wording almost exactly the same in meaning to all the synoptic Gospels, but his version and Luke's version are verbatim. That indicates very strongly that Paul had contact with synoptic teachings.

For Paul's version to be taken from the synoptics (a broad statement) would mean that he accessed the writings...which didn't exist if we assume that Paul was around in the commonly accepted time lines. Otherwise we're assuming that the author of G.Luke is his doctor friend Luke which cannot be reasonably established. While we're making these sorts of connections we might as well say that one or the other is an insertion by a later author as it's equally reasonable.

 

Saying that it's from a non-Jewish origin just because the order is off is far too hasty. Why is the order that important?

The order of the meal was very important to the tradition. To suddenly reverse it, for no apparent reason, seems to miss the point. If this meal was the replacement for this other tradition that is. Since many of the Jews seemed to continue following their old traditions, even after converting, it's a hard call as to when the actual meal came into practice.

 

If you're going to say that the commonality might have come from the Didache or some precursor document, I'm going to have to question whether you've actually read the Didache.

Question away. You'd be wrong. I've read the document several times.

 

The idea that a law abiding Jew would introduce a rite that included the consumption of his own body and, especially, blood is ridiculous. In G.John his disciples hear what he has to say and most of them walk away as a result. For someone with a pagan background this idea would be much more acceptable. The Didache and it's idea that the bread/wine was from the vine of David (I don't recall the exact phrasing...I do remember there are variants) would be no problem for Jews to practice.

 

mwc

[qadeshet]

I think the disciple/sign reference has been lost in the deep void of history. And who really knows anything for sure.

 

"Who really knows anything for sure," indeed! It strikes me as far more likely that, rather than symbolizing the 12 signs of the Zodiac, the 12 apostles symbolize the 12 tribes of Israel. This is far more consistent with the Jewish ideas from which Christianity sprang. If there was major pagan influence, it occurred later than the arrival of the idea of the 12 apostles.

 

The 12 Tribes are also associated with the Zodiac. As are the 12 Labors of Hercules. And the 12 knights of the Round Table. The Gospels describe the Sun's journey through the Zodiac over the course of one year.

 

See the series of articles below for a thorough description.

 

TRACING THE SUN THROUGH THE ZODIAC

[HadouKen24]

The issue at hand seemed to be did he learn what he did from the others or did he get it from the visions? Taking up the issue of the circumcision shows that he did not simply defer to their authority or accept whatever teaching came from Jerusalem. Paul's authority was Paul via the visions.

 

Umm... how about both? Paul's central claim was that he had been charged with bringing the gospel to the gentiles. If Acts is even remotely accurate, he had considerable contact with Christians--albeit as persecutor--prior to conversion, and thus would probably have had at least a vague idea of what they believed.

 

As for why he might confront others over teaching that didn't align with his own, well, orthodoxy versus heresy is all in the eye of the beholder and rather commonplace don't you think?

 

My question was, why did he go to Jerusalem if he was just doing his own thing with the gentiles?

 

For Paul's version to be taken from the synoptics (a broad statement) would mean that he accessed the writings...which didn't exist if we assume that Paul was around in the commonly accepted time lines. Otherwise we're assuming that the author of G.Luke is his doctor friend Luke which cannot be reasonably established. While we're making these sorts of connections we might as well say that one or the other is an insertion by a later author as it's equally reasonable.

 

I did not say that Paul's version was taken from the synoptics. I have made the claim that he didn't just make his theology up whole cloth, but had considerable influence from the rest of the Christian community. The similarities between the synoptic versions of the Last Supper and the Pauline version indicate to me that there was considerable contact between Paul and people carrying on the traditions that would later be written down in the synoptics.

 

The idea that a law abiding Jew would introduce a rite that included the consumption of his own body and, especially, blood is ridiculous. In G.John his disciples hear what he has to say and most of them walk away as a result. For someone with a pagan background this idea would be much more acceptable. The Didache and it's idea that the bread/wine was from the vine of David (I don't recall the exact phrasing...I do remember there are variants) would be no problem for Jews to practice.

 

That the cannibalistic rite of the Eucharist would be more acceptable to pagans indicates no more than that Christianity would spread easier among pagans than among Christians. Which, as we know from history, is the truth. It says nothing about the actual origin of the rite.

 

Calling Jesus a "law abiding Jew" rather overstates the case--at least, as he is portrayed in the gospels. Let's remember, after all, that the Matthew records him telling his disciples to pick food on the Sabbath, in contradiction to OT law. He seems to have been a bit of a trouble maker. I don't think we can really say anything about what would or would not have been "ridiculous" for Jesus to do or say, either the actual person, or the literary figure.

[HadouKen24]

The 12 Tribes are also associated with the Zodiac. As are the 12 Labors of Hercules. And the 12 knights of the Round Table. The Gospels describe the Sun's journey through the Zodiac over the course of one year.

 

See the series of articles below for a thorough description.

 

TRACING THE SUN THROUGH THE ZODIAC

Every set of twelve is associated with the Zodiac. Students of the occult have made sure of that. I should know; I'm one of them.

 

Honestly, the linked articles are thoroughly unconvincing. They claim, for example, that the synoptic gospels put Jesus' ministry at about a year's length. That's not correct; the gospels don't actually give a time length for Jesus' ministry, but going by the text of the books themselves, the order in which festivals and things are mentioned, etc., it had to be at least two or three years.

 

That's just one of many errors I could show. Moreover, the articles provide no sources whatsoever to back up their facts, make incredibly broad statements, and have a rhetorical style that relies on psychological tricks rather than rigorous, evidence-backed argumentation.

[mwc]

Umm... how about both? Paul's central claim was that he had been charged with bringing the gospel to the gentiles. If Acts is even remotely accurate, he had considerable contact with Christians--albeit as persecutor--prior to conversion, and thus would probably have had at least a vague idea of what they believed.

Both? Both he deferred to Jerusalem and his visions? That doesn't sound right so are you trying to say that Paul is mixing a bit of this and that into his brand of xianity?

 

As for Acts being remotely accurate...we'll just have to disagree...a lot...on that. Remotely accurate would be generous.

 

My question was, why did he go to Jerusalem if he was just doing his own thing with the gentiles?

In his letters it would appear he went for no reason in particular. If anything it would seem to simply be able to claim that he "shook hands" with someone famous but he's not interested in learning anything from them by his own testimony. Of course he could have simply made the whole thing up and never went at all. How could anyone know?

 

I did not say that Paul's version was taken from the synoptics. I have made the claim that he didn't just make his theology up whole cloth, but had considerable influence from the rest of the Christian community. The similarities between the synoptic versions of the Last Supper and the Pauline version indicate to me that there was considerable contact between Paul and people carrying on the traditions that would later be written down in the synoptics.

I never said you did say Paul took what he said from the synoptics but you did indicate they were closely related so I touched on the issue while it was in front of me just to be certain.

 

I agree that Paul didn't make up his theology whole cloth. I just don't agree that it appeared in the 30's from events described in the gospels.

 

Calling Jesus a "law abiding Jew" rather overstates the case--at least, as he is portrayed in the gospels. Let's remember, after all, that the Matthew records him telling his disciples to pick food on the Sabbath, in contradiction to OT law. He seems to have been a bit of a trouble maker. I don't think we can really say anything about what would or would not have been "ridiculous" for Jesus to do or say, either the actual person, or the literary figure.

There's quite a leap from allowing your followers to feed themselves to telling them to symbolically ingest your body and blood in a ritualistic manner. We can read what other Jews from the period were debating and these minor nits you present would fall well within the realm of "reasonable" discourse. But the idea of a blood rite as described in the gospels is not something they would take lightly. Such a teaching would be, in and of itself, reason to kill any jesus and his followers.

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

"Who really knows anything for sure," indeed! It strikes me as far more likely that, rather than symbolizing the 12 signs of the Zodiac, the 12 apostles symbolize the 12 tribes of Israel. This is far more consistent with the Jewish ideas from which Christianity sprang. If there was major pagan influence, it occurred later than the arrival of the idea of the 12 apostles.

And the 12 tribes were also the signs of the zodiac.

http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/The_Tribes_of_Israel

 

http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/il_tribe.html

"In the Wars of the Jews (4, 5) Flavius Josephus also mentions that the 12 shewbreads in the Temple represented the zodiac."

 

I think the Encyclopedia Britanica also state the connection to the zodiac, but I don't have a subscription to look it up correctly...

 

Astrology is never condemned in the Bible. In fact, we are led to believe that Daniel of lion's den fame was trained in astrology.

Actually it is condemned. Several passages say condemns worship of the sun, moon and the stars, and even Isaiah 47:13 spell out the word "astrologer" in a passage of condemning the peoples false religions.

 

To paraphrase Freud, sometimes a fish is just a fish

It's funny though that around the same time as Jesus showed up on the scene (200 BCE-100 CE), we entered into the Age of Pisces. It is a very odd coincidense. And the fish symbol was used quite a lot in the early churches. It was (IIRC from a documentary) just as common as the cross symbol. The zodiac symbol also sometimes is pictured as a cross within a ring. The cross in the zodiac is the sun, the ring represents the 12 signs. (But that's just what I can remember from the top of my head).

 

He never said that they would be able to read the stars. He said that in the time of the apocalypse, there would be "great signs in the sky." Given that most of the apostles were fairly uneducated, and couldn't even read a book, let alone the stars, I doubt that this is actually a reference to astrology. More likely, it's a reference to comets and eclipses, and the like.

He also said "at that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky." Did he mean a magical flying cross, or a star-sign?

 

"And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; "

 

How can he say "signs in the stars". Does he mean there will yet another magical cross visible inside the stars? Or does he mean signs in the stars, like astrology?

 

 

The Sun in the sun-worship religions was considered both the high god but also the son of the creator. (IIRC)

 

Eh... I'd have to see a source on that...

I found several from different religions at that time or before, but 'll give you one that's interesting: http://www.pantheon.org/articles/b/baal.html

Baal, the master and/or sun, and also the son of El:

"The antiquity of the worship of the god or gods of Baal extends back to the 14th century BCE among the ancient Semitic peoples, the descendants of Shem, the oldest son of Biblical Noah. Semitic is more of a linguistic classification than a racial one. Thus, people speaking the same or similar languages first worshiped Baal in his many forms. The word Baal means "master" or "owner". In ancient religions the name denoted sun, lord or god. Baal was common a name of small Syrian and Persian deities. Baal is still principally thought of as a Canaanite fertility deity. The Great Baal was of Canaan. He was the son of El, the high god of Canaan. The cult of Baal celebrated annually his death and resurrection as a part of the Canaanite fertility rituals. These ceremonies often included human sacrifice and temple prostitution."

 

(note the references to Canaan and Semites)

 

The date of death-and-resurrection is misplaced, that is true. But the spring-equinox and easter was also pagan traditions of rebirth. The plants coming back to life.

 

Sure. But it has nothing to do with any sun-god.

It had everything to do with the sun. The sun gave life to the life stock and the farming. The sun was coming out from its slumber and life came back.

 

Between 2-3 hundred variants? How does that differ from today? They're all still Christian now, and they were all still Christian then. Sure, there were doctrinal squabbles, and there were winners and losers in those political debates. But the variants that overtly brought strong pagan elements into their doctrine--and not just their liturgy--were generally small in number and recognized by many/most Christians to be illegitimate. Most Gnostic groups fit into this category. The presence of doctrinal disputes does not entail the overwhelming influence of pagan thought over and above that which is found in Paul.

It was a counter argument to your statement that Christianity was formed around single dogmas, which it wasn't. It was just as confused and mixed when it started as it is today, therefore it isn't and wasn't one simple, or single idea or religion, but a compilation of many beliefs.

 

I'm not arguing that everything in Christianity comes from astrology, but it does have influences. The magi as I mentioned before is clear references to astrological beliefs, and the Church later on did strongly condemn astrology, and in my opinion, I think they removed references that were too obvious.

[Ouroboros]

Honestly, the linked articles are thoroughly unconvincing. They claim, for example, that the synoptic gospels put Jesus' ministry at about a year's length. That's not correct; the gospels don't actually give a time length for Jesus' ministry, but going by the text of the books themselves, the order in which festivals and things are mentioned, etc., it had to be at least two or three years.

I think it depends on if you want to read the stories literally or as a common story that was rewritten or modified. Some of the events are very similar, but different enough to either be two different events or the same one but rewritten.

 

For a literalist, who believes the stories are historically accurate, two stories that are different enough, has to be considered as two different events.

 

But for a non-literalist, the two stories are just two different writings of the same original story. But exactly which one, or if there was another one, is harder to tell.

 

This makes the literalist forced to lay out so many events so one year isn't enough. But for a non-literalist, the story could very well be compressed into one year.

 

But that is just my opinion about that subject. I have never even considered if the gospel story is 1 year or 3.5 years.

[Grandpa Harley]

The date of death-and-resurrection is misplaced, that is true. But the spring-equinox and easter was also pagan traditions of rebirth. The plants coming back to life.

 

 

Sure. But it has nothing to do with any sun-god.

 

Actually it does... Spring Equinox is when the sun finally turns the tables on the night (away from the Equator, the night and day are equal - 12 hours a pop, thereafter the night is shorter) So you'll find that the sun gods usually have a battle they win about that time (Jesus beats death itself at the third moon of the year after Winter solstice...

[Jubilant]

Why? Where in the writings that are known to be Paul's, does he even once remotely appear to have known Jesus in any other way?

His constant references to Christ having had human, physical form would be a good place to start. Romans 8, for instance, or Philippians 2. I Cor. 15 not only affirms that Christ's resurrection was physical, but corroborates the story of the resurrection as found in the Gospels.

 

A good place to start? I don't agree, there is nothing within Romans 8 that shows Paul personally knowing Jesus in physical form. And, how does Paul, referencing a story, *affirm* that a supposed resurrection was physical?

 

According to one book that was more than likely written by the same unknown author that wrote The Gospel of Luke ; the same unknown author who most likely copied from Mark. Not to trustworthy of a source if you ask me.

 

I suspect that many of the events in the book are either made up, or twisted, such as the encounter with Simon Magus.

 

Only "suspect" that many of the events are made up? I'd say that whole "speaking in unknown tongues" stands alone as testament to it being a load of bologna, I mean, come on.

 

However, Acts does give some support to the idea that Paul had contact with the other apostles, as do his epistles.

 

Hearsay, based upon hearsay, based upon hearsay. Some UNKNOWN AUTHOR is given credit for writing two books, that are given credit by the church as being written by Luke (which cannot be proven) and somehow you give credit to a man clearly hateful towards the Jews, as being truthful? The only reference given by one of the *apostles* is given in 2 Peter...which more than likely was not written by the same guy who wrote 1 Peter.

 

There really isn't any evidence that he didn't have contact with them. To say that Paul was completely out of touch with the rest of the contemporary Christian leadership is pure speculation.

 

Are we reading from the same Bible? In the Matthew 5:18-19, Christ is quoted as saying "

 

18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass (looks around...yep, the sky and earth are still here), one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

 

19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Wow, does that describe Paul to the tee or what? Me thinks, that it does.

 

His teachings run COMPLETELY contrary to the Gospels.

[HadouKen24]

Both? Both he deferred to Jerusalem and his visions? That doesn't sound right so are you trying to say that Paul is mixing a bit of this and that into his brand of xianity?

 

As for Acts being remotely accurate...we'll just have to disagree...a lot...on that. Remotely accurate would be generous.

 

I'm saying that he used both his visions and prior teachings about Jesus as his basis for his teachings.

 

If you have objections to the historicity of Acts, feel free to present them. I'm unaware of any evidence that the author just made stuff up, though.

 

In his letters it would appear he went for no reason in particular. If anything it would seem to simply be able to claim that he "shook hands" with someone famous but he's not interested in learning anything from them by his own testimony. Of course he could have simply made the whole thing up and never went at all. How could anyone know?

 

In other words, you don't really have an explanation for his going, then.

 

Acts would seem to show at least some counter-evidence to the accusation that he just made the visit up.

 

I agree that Paul didn't make up his theology whole cloth. I just don't agree that it appeared in the 30's from events described in the gospels.

 

Ah. I see we have an issue of interpretation, then.

 

I'm not saying that the events described in the gospels necessarily actually happened. I suspect some of them are, in fact, based on Jesus' actual teachings--the apocalypticism, especially. I am saying, though, that these stories had spread throughout the Christian community by the time Paul showed up on the scene.

 

There's quite a leap from allowing your followers to feed themselves to telling them to symbolically ingest your body and blood in a ritualistic manner. We can read what other Jews from the period were debating and these minor nits you present would fall well within the realm of "reasonable" discourse. But the idea of a blood rite as described in the gospels is not something they would take lightly. Such a teaching would be, in and of itself, reason to kill any jesus and his followers.

 

Strangely enough, that seems to be what the Jews of the time tried to do.

[Grandpa Harley]

Simon Magus flew? Historical fact? It's in Acts and if acts is history then Simon flew, until the disciples prayed at him...

[HadouKen24]

And the 12 tribes were also the signs of the zodiac.

http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/The_Tribes_of_Israel

 

http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/il_tribe.html

"In the Wars of the Jews (4, 5) Flavius Josephus also mentions that the 12 shewbreads in the Temple represented the zodiac."

 

I think the Encyclopedia Britanica also state the connection to the zodiac, but I don't have a subscription to look it up correctly...

 

The source says that the number 12 may have been to match the Zodiac. As interesting as that hypothesis is, it's still speculation.

 

Actually it is condemned. Several passages say condemns worship of the sun, moon and the stars, and even Isaiah 47:13 spell out the word "astrologer" in a passage of condemning the peoples false religions.

 

Wait... first you're going to say that the Twelve Tribes are based on the zodiac, and say that one of the symbols in the temple represents the zodiac... and now you're going to say that astrology was condemned? Strange.

 

As it happens, by the by, that passage has nothing to do with the legitimacy of astrology on its own, but with its place within Babylonian society. Isaiah's screed is against the fact that the Babylonians dared not worship his god, and predicts dire fortunes. The mention of astrologers is that they won't be able to help you overcome it.

 

It's funny though that around the same time as Jesus showed up on the scene (200 BCE-100 CE), we entered into the Age of Pisces. It is a very odd coincidense. And the fish symbol was used quite a lot in the early churches. It was (IIRC from a documentary) just as common as the cross symbol. The zodiac symbol also sometimes is pictured as a cross within a ring. The cross in the zodiac is the sun, the ring represents the 12 signs. (But that's just what I can remember from the top of my head).

 

The cross symbol was extremely unpopular, for obvious reasons, until the Romans stopped using crucifixion as a common punishment. It wasn't really used in the early church.

 

You can say it's a funny coincidence all you like, but until there's some evidence for it being more than that, that's all it is.

 

I'm familiar with the sun cross, but this is the first I've hear that the ring symbolizes the zodiac. But it wasn't really used in Christian iconography, as far as I'm aware, until much later than the events we're speaking of.

 

I found several from different religions at that time or before, but 'll give you one that's interesting: http://www.pantheon.org/articles/b/baal.html

Baal, the master and/or sun, and also the son of El:

"The antiquity of the worship of the god or gods of Baal extends back to the 14th century BCE among the ancient Semitic peoples, the descendants of Shem, the oldest son of Biblical Noah. Semitic is more of a linguistic classification than a racial one. Thus, people speaking the same or similar languages first worshiped Baal in his many forms. The word Baal means "master" or "owner". In ancient religions the name denoted sun, lord or god. Baal was common a name of small Syrian and Persian deities. Baal is still principally thought of as a Canaanite fertility deity. The Great Baal was of Canaan. He was the son of El, the high god of Canaan. The cult of Baal celebrated annually his death and resurrection as a part of the Canaanite fertility rituals. These ceremonies often included human sacrifice and temple prostitution."

 

(note the references to Canaan and Semites)

 

There's one. Got any more?

 

It had everything to do with the sun. The sun gave life to the life stock and the farming. The sun was coming out from its slumber and life came back.

 

Well, you're going to have to find that link in Judaism, then. The timing of Easter is, after all, based on the idea that Jesus was crucified around the time of Passover. The two dates are by now somewhat unlinked, but they're still around the same general time of year.

 

It was a counter argument to your statement that Christianity was formed around single dogmas, which it wasn't. It was just as confused and mixed when it started as it is today, therefore it isn't and wasn't one simple, or single idea or religion, but a compilation of many beliefs.

 

I'm not arguing that everything in Christianity comes from astrology, but it does have influences. The magi as I mentioned before is clear references to astrological beliefs, and the Church later on did strongly condemn astrology, and in my opinion, I think they removed references that were too obvious.

 

I didn't say that Christianity was formed around "single dogmas." I said it was formed around orthodoxy--the idea that what essentially makes one Christian is correct doctrine, though proper spiritual attitude and baptism are also important. Pauline Christianity, at the very least, is orthodox in nature.

[HadouKen24]

A good place to start? I don't agree, there is nothing within Romans 8 that shows Paul personally knowing Jesus in physical form. And, how does Paul, referencing a story, *affirm* that a supposed resurrection was physical?

 

I wasn't trying to say that he knew Jesus in physical form. I was making the point that Paul knew that Jesus had been in physical form, and was familiar with at least some stories of Jesus' life.

 

Only "suspect" that many of the events are made up? I'd say that whole "speaking in unknown tongues" stands alone as testament to it being a load of bologna, I mean, come on.

 

Instead of looking at it like a modern work of history, you should look at it as one man's best guess as to how it went down based on the oral and written accounts he was able to find. As a work of historiography of this sort, it's unlikely that the whole thing is just "a load of bologna.

 

However, Acts does give some support to the idea that Paul had contact with the other apostles, as do his epistles.

 

Hearsay, based upon hearsay, based upon hearsay. Some UNKNOWN AUTHOR is given credit for writing two books, that are given credit by the church as being written by Luke (which cannot be proven) and somehow you give credit to a man clearly hateful towards the Jews, as being truthful? The only reference given by one of the *apostles* is given in 2 Peter...which more than likely was not written by the same guy who wrote 1 Peter.

 

It may be "hearsay," but hearsay is the only kind of evidence we have! If you have any more solid evidence, feel free to trot it out, but until then, I'll stick with what evidence we do have.

 

There really isn't any evidence that he didn't have contact with them. To say that Paul was completely out of touch with the rest of the contemporary Christian leadership is pure speculation.

 

Are we reading from the same Bible? In the Matthew 5:18-19, Christ is quoted as saying "

 

18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass (looks around...yep, the sky and earth are still here), one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

 

19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Wow, does that describe Paul to the tee or what? Me thinks, that it does.

 

His teachings run COMPLETELY contrary to the Gospels.

 

I don't recall ever claiming that Jesus' teachings and Paul's teachings were entirely harmonious. I'm only making the claim that Paul based much of his theology on ideas propagated by the Christian community out of which the gospels arose. I never made the claim that Paul knew all of the stories about Jesus, nor have I claimed that he never contradicts them.