mountainman

Hi Philosopher Jay,

When we look for Origen we find two Origens - one asserted by Eusebius to be a christian and one whom ancient historians view as the Platonist disciple of the founder of Neo-Platonism Ammonias Saccas. The situation is additionally compounded when we look for Ammonias Saccas, because again we find two separate Ammonias Saccas's. One is regarded by most ancient historians as the sack carrier on the grain wharves of Alexandria as the "Father of Neoplatonism" and the other is asserted by Eusebius to be a christian.

This compounds all objective suspicion that Eusebius has simply fabricated his history out of thin (imperially sponsored) air. How long are generations of analysts going to continue to follow the Wizzle Tracks around and around the Mulberry bush?

ApostateAbe

Thanks for clearing that up. :-P It is interesting for me to know, though I was actually quoting the argument of Philosopher Jay.

spamandham

There is no way to establish whether or not this likely, but it's certainly plausible, and not without evidence as you claim. ...because we see the same type of formula elsewhere.

What's the Eucharist all about? "Do this in memory of me". Obviously the explanation put into the mouth of Jesus makes absolutely no sense at all. "Spin around in circles 4 times and slap your ass in memory of me" makes as much sense. The author had no idea why they were doing this bread/wine ritual (or the real reason for it was embarrassing perhaps) and so he made up this silly "and that's why we celebrate the Eucharist" explanation.

If you reject Price's explanation as unlikely, you are then left without explanation as to the rite of Baptism - in the same boat as the gospel author. As a gospel author, how do you choose to explain this ritual?

ApostateAbe

My intuition is that the Eucharistic ritual and the Eucharistic monologue of Paul was a ritual based on Christian's commemorating the "Last Supper" (Passover) of Jesus. They put words in Jesus' mouth as they thought he may have spoke. Is there anything unlikely about that?

In Jewish society, morality was tied into concepts of "clean" (good) and "unclean" (evil), as seen in their scriptures. Baptism was a ritual very likely meant to symbolize the cleansing of a person from sin, as reflected in the description by Josephus. Is there anything unlikely about that?

aa5874

Trying to make up plausible scenarios for the implausible characters is just a case of fututility.

Who would have thought that some-one could have started a religion by claiming he copied the words of a God on "Golden Plates".

It is virtually a useless exercise to try and just guess history when we have information that tend to show that the ritual of the Last Supper was probably from Mithraism.

This is Justin Martyr in "First Apology"66 See http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...stapology.html

So even the ritual of the Eucharist predated Jesus and Paul.

Paul and Jesus are irrelevant with respect to the origin of the ritual of the Eucharist

It must be noted that Justin mentioned the rite of the Eucharist and never did associate Paul with the ritual.

ApostateAbe

Jesus could have meant many things, and so you can take a dozen different sidesteps to dodge what otherwise seems to be the most likely explanation, the same as any other passage. If Jesus really meant, "among those born of women and outside the kingdom of God," then what is the evidence? Or, why is the qualification omitted in Q? Too wordy? Is my interpretation not sufficiently reinforced by the baptism account in Mark and the ideological spin of the same event in Matthew, Luke and John? Yesterday, I talked with a Christian friend of mine about this passage, and her tentative explanation was that Jesus was just being humble, as I predicted a sidestep might be. You can just as easily take that explanation, too.

andrewcriddle

How do you interpret ?

Andrew Criddle

ApostateAbe

I figure that latter clause is why the quote was preserved. Jesus was trying to give hope and pride to people who are otherwise lowly and poor. It is a doctrine that Jesus repeats, in Mark 10:31, for example. The poor were apparently Jesus' primary target of recruitment.

spamandham

You find this intuitive? Ancient Greek culture did abide a prisoner of his final meal much like modern western culture does. But beyond that, was there significance to a final meal in this culture?

Are the final meals of other hero figures of this time period enshrined? If not, then there needs to be another explanation of why this particular meal was enshrined, and that reason is obvious. It provides an explanation for the origin of the Eucharist that was otherwise unknown or embarrassing. Christians were not the only cult practicing sacred meals. Greek religion was practically a supper club. The new Christian cult wished to distinguish itself from this, and needed an explanation for their sacred meal.

I'd say it's nearly certain they put the words in his mouth, but beyond that, I don't see anything plausible about your explanation.

The idea of cleansing from sin via ritual bathing is novel to Christianity (or possibly also similar other cults) and there's nothing implausible about that description. But the issue at point is whether or not John's baptism of Jesus is recorded to explain why Christians do it, or if it's really historical, or there for some other reason.

Price's explanation, that it's there to act as a pattern that explains *why* Christians do it (rather than simply what it is) is certainly plausible. Whether or not it's the simplest explanation is another matter. But it is plausible and follows from other evidence (the Eucharist example cited above).

Personally, I think the baptism of Jesus is just following the Jewish pattern of 'the second shall be first' repeated over and over and over in the OT. In this case, that pattern is employed to pay some respect to John's cult while still claiming authority for Jesus' cult - a conversion tool for followers of John.

"Hey you followers of John, you had the right idea and John *was* the guy you should be following, but even John recognized the authority of Jesus and officially passed the baton when he baptized him. Hell, baby John even kicked in the womb when he sensed womb-baby Jeuss! Step in line."

ApostateAbe

You ask: "You find this intuitive? Ancient Greek culture did abide a prisoner of his final meal much like modern western culture does. But beyond that, was there significance to a final meal in this culture?"

I say: it is not at all implausible that Christians would find this "last supper" significant enough to make a ritual out of it, for two reasons.

1. It was the Jewish Passover.
   
2. Jesus was thought to be the son of God and the messiah, which means he knew the future. In fiction (and presumably in myth), someone who knows that he is just about to die always has something important to say to his people.