Toto

Did Attis suffer? Did Osiris suffer? Inanna?

EarlDoherty

So there are no such things as new ideas? Or new causes for new ideas?

Haven't you ever had a new idea, o-h?

Well, OK, maybe that's a bad analogy.

Earl Doherty

outhouse

my bad, should have stated one of the Israelite deity legends.


but while attis states he castrated himself, he didnt state he suffered, from the vague description I read, nor his death from the boar

I didnt find much with osiris suffering despite his death and 14 pieces



I would agree humans have usually given deities human attributes, allthough only one I know was a poverty stricken peasant

outhouse

I know you hate nicknames, you may call me John if you like.


Its Possible Earl, I think jesus mythology did break the mold as written. Of course that would be expected since it is roman hellenistic mythology with the mythical core of the OT in judaism. Its a blend of mythology.

your point taken, I can keep a open mind.

stephan huller

There was debate even within normative Christian circles as to the reality of Jesus's suffering. Read Gregory Thaumaturgus's to Theopompus. This is a long drawn out discussion essentially saying Jesus didn't suffer but in such a convoluted way you can't pin down what he is actually saying. The argument boils down to something like this - Jesus is asbestos and suffering is fire. Whenever you find a Christian arguing that Jesus was impassable that means they didn't think he suffered (= the people that used longer Mark cf. Irenaeus 3.11.7, certain branches of Valentinism, Clement, Gregory etc).

stephan huller

I will say it again (because I have nothing else at the moment to do). Early Christianity wasn't mythical as much it was dramatic. Jesus was the character in a play that all the believers wanted to play. The gospel is interpretative rather than fully imaginative. This doesn't mean that it is historical or the events happened the way described. But at the same time there is a difference between myths - which mostly happen in imaginary locales or in imaginary ages (Theseus and the labyrinth on Crete). There is a sense from the very beginning (of the Alexandrian tradition at least) that this is an interpretation of someone rather than history.

Just read a sample from to Theopompus and I hope you see what I mean:

Maybe the best example is LSD. Christianity is like getting high. There is a reality, there is 'history.' But this is 'reality' and 'history' from an altered point of view. There are people, dogs, pigs etc but they are now infused with spirit or demons. Jesus is a being who isn't limited to a particular person at a particular time. Jesus is just as much in the bread and wine as he was walking the streets of Palestine.

stephan huller

Why would the question of whether Jesus actually suffered if this was a strictly historical tradition?

PhilosopherJay

Hi Duvduv,

I have only finished about 2/5ths of the book, and he has not dealt with the heresiologists yet, so I am not sure how rigorous his analysis is of there writings.

What I do find is that he tends to assume an historical Jesus instead of proving it. He has a disturbing habit of saying here is the proof, and then offering a proof where he assumes the best explanation is an historical Jesus and then saying that all or nearly all scholars agree with this. The proofs, for anyone who has carefully studied the texts are generally presented with wild assumptions (such as the text could not have been altered because none of the manuscripts we presently have show any alteration).

Let me give you a concrete example:

He says on page 121:

He then quotes 1 Corinthians 11:22-24:

He says about this quote, "It is important to note that he indicates this scene happened at night. This is not some vague mythological reference but a concrete historical one. Paul knows that Jesus had a Last Supper with his disciples in which he predicted his approaching death, the very night he was handed over to the authorities."

Ehrman just assumes that he is referring to an historical event that later evolved into the Last Supper scenes in Matthew, Mark and Luke.

Instead of assuming that the text was meant to be about Jesus, we can assume, on my hypothesis, that the text was really speaking about Paul's arrest and not Jesus'

We learn in Acts 22 that Paul was brought before the Sanhedrin, the Jewish High Council:

Of course Paul getting struck at his trial is later repeated in the gospel stories of Jesus being struck while at his trial. We may suppose that this scene was composed first and the gospel writers took it and used the striking scene with Jesus. Instead of assuming a historical tradition, we just need to assume that the source "Acts of the Apostle Paul" text, which was later transformed into part of the "Acts of the Apostles" had this scene in it. The gospel writers lifted the High Priest striking scene from it.

Soon, we read:
Paul is delivered over and that night the Lord speaks to Paul. We can assume that this was in the source texts for the Acts of the Apostles.

Rather than believing that Paul was writing about Jesus being delivered and talking with God, what if the original letter was talking about this scene in "Acts of the Apostle Paul"where Paul was delivered and the Lord or Lord Jesus spoke to him. Only a single word has to be changed to make the text about Paul.

Just as the first part of the scene with the Chief priest striking Paul was transformed to the scenes in the gospel of the Chief priest striking Jesus, the part of the scene where Paul gives the blessing of the bread and cup was transferred into the gospel stories.

In this case the chronology would be
1. Apostle-adventure story of Paul being delivered over to the Roman soldiers and the Lord appearing that night that night to Paul
2. Story cited in Paul's text with the blessing of the bread and wine added because Paul is talking about a meeting meal and part of the Hebrew tradition.
3. Story is lifted from Paul's letter and placed into Jesus gospels.
4. Copyists change "I" to "he" to make it match up with the gospels.

This explanation entirely eliminates any need for Paul to know a Jesus tradition and matches the paucity of information that Paul has about any historical Jesus. It eliminates Ehrman's claim that the writer of the epistle knew anything about the Last Supper story. Rather it sees the Last Supper blessing as being pinched from the adventures of Paul and his letter referring to his own misadventures.

We see a simple literary progression instead of a mystical oral tradition. The mystical oral tradition can be used to explain anything being or not being in the text and is therefore meaningless.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

aa5874

I find your approach to be just as absurd as Ehrman. How in the world can you accuse Ehrman of making wild assumptions and then IMMEDIATELY begin to make your OWN.

Your methodolgy of assumptions is completely unacceptable. There is absolutely no need to assume anything.

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings must be analyzed WITHOUT removing or adding any words just to get a desired outcome.

These ancient writings are tantamount to Witness Statements they cannot be Altered or manipulated.

Now, we can go through Acts of the Apostles, line by line and chapter by chapter, and there is NO actual human Jesus character in the book.

In fact, in Acts the Jesus cult could NOT have started with an actual human Jesus on earth.

I repeat, In Acts 1, the Jesus cult could NOT have started with an actual human Jesus on earth.

In Acts 1, Jesus MUST Ascend and later Send the Promised Holy Ghost BEFORE the Jesus story can ever be preached.

Acts of the Apostles is a Myth Fable about the Ascended Jesus and the Promised Holy Ghost.

There is NO need to make wild assumptions like Ehrman.

Acts of the Apostles contains ZERO history of a human Jesus with a human father. See Acts 1 and Acts 2.

Acts of the Apostles does NOT state that Paul wrote letters to Churches.

In the very Acts of the Apostles, Saul/Paul did NOT see the resurrected and ascended Jesus.

Remarkably, in Acts 9, Saul/Paul did NOT ever see HJ or MJ. Paul ONLY heard the resurrected MJ.

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings are NOT historically reliable they tell us Nothing Credible.

Other Sources must be employed--Not sources of perjury--to show how the Jesus Myth developed.

If everyone is allowed to remove and add words to Acts and the Pauline letters then surely we are not doing history.

sotto voce

Normative carnal circles, more like.