Ben C Smith

Thanks for setting me straight, Joe. Which spots of the Jewish Bible am I not accepting the plain meaning of?

I would appreciate it. Thanks.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

I am not sure. The part about being sent from God or from heaven, for example, I have seen applied to earthly individuals, and I assume it could be applied to purely spiritual savior figures, but I do not know where right offhand. (Nor am I wont to trust assumptions, not even my own.) Could you perhaps show me where that concept is applied to a spirit entity only?

Ditto the part about ascending to heaven at or after death. Again, I presume it can apply to a purely spiritual figure; does it actually do so somewhere?

Thanks.

Ben.

gstafleu

Augustus has something neither Inana nor Dionysos nor Jesus (certainly the Pauline one) has: clear historical attestation outside the religious/mythological realm. So if a writer would mention that Augustus was born from a woman, we would say: Well, duh. If that same writer would then go on to mention the woman in question was a virgin, we would label that as mythical accretion. The problem with I, D and J is that we don't have any clear historical attestation, just a lot of myth. So if some writer mentioned these three did something earthly--be it being born, walking the earth or something else--we then assume as the most likely hypothesis that this earthly act is real(M) rather than real(H).

Because of our "third party" (with respect to religion/myth) knowledge of Augustus' historicity, we are with him in a position where we can say that his being born of a woman is real(H) while his being born of a virgin is (at best) real(M). I say at best because I'm not all that sure to what extent people really believed that: it may have been politically correct hyperbole (do you know?).

This is why I keep saying that you should first come up with some evidence for an HJ, before you can "harmonize" Paul with that. The passages you mention in Paul are simply not enough to get Jesus anywhere near an Augustine status of reality: they are too few compared to the rest, plus they are easily explained as myth.

Gerard Stafleu

aa5874

The 'silence' of the historians, contemporary are not, appears to blend perfectly with the 'silence' of the Pauline Epistles. Jesus is not in the same realm as Augustus. Jesus is probably from the 'third heaven'

ynquirer

Interesting theory. Many thanks.

gstafleu

But did Paul know he was writing divine comedy? A question that underlies the debate about what a religious writer "meant" is always: to what extent was he/she aware of the metaphoric nature of the material. It is all very well for us, who have access to a multitude of mythologies, to discern common themes in all of them, and as a result see the Jesus story as an interesting solution to the Oedipus problem. But that is likely not how the majority of adherents experienced it.

Myth in its metaphoric form is made by poets (in the wide sense of the work, Dali's melting time can here be seen as poetic expression as well). But poets are rare, literalists are not. So, was Paul a mythopoet or just a literalist reporter? My impression is: mostly a reporter, although he claims to have made some new discoveries. But are those different from the "new discovery" of the idea of rapture by John Darby in the 19th century?

Given the fervency of Paul's presentation, I doubt that he was a mythopoet who was aware of the metaphoric background of his material. If he was, all discussions about his belief in an HJ of course go by the wayside, but I don't think it's that easy.

Gerard Stafleu

ynquirer

Please don’t ask for historical evidence of Jesus, which is a different topic. Show evidence in Paul that he speaks of a mythical entity, instead. Not just ambiguous statements, which can be interpreted one way or the other, but clear-cut affirmations that he believed Jesus not to be a real(H) person - your jargon. We must assess Paul’s propositions about Jesus according to Paul’s own standards rather than ours.

Should Paul have spoken of where and when Jesus was born? Of his infancy and adulthood? Of his miracles and wonders? That is what you expect, isn’t it? Yet, look: Paul spoke of the sole thing that was important to him - Jesus’ resurrection. Paul speaks of Jesus’ resurrection a number of times, and in every of his epistles. Why was it the sole important thing? Because it was the only deed that could not possibly be performed by men. What about the miracles, the healings, the walks on the water? Those deeds could be performed by men, and not precisely by a few, but by many, whether good or evil. Paul thought those deeds unimportant. Accordingly, he said nothing of them.

Now, discount resurrection - if you wish - as much as you discount Augustus’ having been born of a virgin, that is, as a mythical accretion. What still remains is a very stylized life, but a life - born of a woman, of so-and-so ascendency, crucified, buried.

I don’t think you have as many mythologies as to discern a common theme in all of them that squares in Paul‘s discourse:

• Rom 15.18-19: … what Christ has wrought through me to win obedience from the Gentiles, by word and deed, by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Holy Spirit, …
• 1 Cor 12.28: And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, ...
• 2 Cor 12.12: The signs of a true apostle were performed among you in all patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works.
• Gal 3.5: Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith?

See what I mean? Ordinary people, Christians - not Christ - doing miracles, healing, etc., as a matter of course. Just show me one mythological discourse written in the first person by someone that acknowledges to be an ordinary man, like this one - “For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle…” (1 Cor 15.9) - and I’ll say, “Ok, you’re right; it's a mythical discourse.”

Interesting report this one, which tells us of apostles that make wonders, and of healers and other miracle-workers!

aa5874

But resurrections are mythical acts. Resurrections are fundamentally linked to beings not made of flesh and blood.

ynquirer

So is to be born of a virgin. Augustus is said to have been born of a virgin. However, you think he was a man made of flesh and blood, don’t you?

gurugeorge

The evidence that he's speaking of (what we would call) a mythical entity comes from the fact that he talks about receiving revelation from that entity: that's his only (or at least main) source of knowledge of that entity, or about that entity.

Clearly he believed that the entity he was talking about was real, but the ancients usually considered their mythical entities real, whether based on what we would consider to be historical human beings or not, so prima facie there's nothing to tell whether he meant real as in "once a human being" or real as in "purely visionary (to us) but real-to-him" (in which case the details would be genuinely historical to him, but not acceptable as historical to us (i.e. about a human being)).