gnosis92

Earl Doherty asks that readers suspend Gospel Jesus details and read the Pauline epistles without assuming Gospel "fiction" and what Paul tells us is that Jesus existed as a purely spiritual figure.

Of course the alternative explanation is that Paul did believe in a historical Jesus, but his theology and the issue which occassioned his letter did not require that he provide such details, and that Paul assumed that his reader had background knowledge of historical Jesus details.

I think the clearest example is the passage "Jesus, on the night he was betrayed" is an example in which his readers would know which night it was he was betrayed, where it happened, why it happened, who did the betraying. If we read this statement as Doherty suggests, independant of Gospel Jesus traditions, This statement would not make sense on its own.
The Gospel of Mark refers to this event. The statement makes sense if the reader understood, in the oral tradition, what is written down in Mark.

If his reader did not know what Paul was referring to on the statement "Jesus on the night he was betrayed" then obviously Pauls' reader would not know what he's talking about and perhaps Paul would clarify. (we don't have records of the letters/oral comments Paul read which he responded to, and his reader's response to his issues). Paul stated the last supper and night he was betrayed, and he seems to believe his readers know what he's talking about. The Gospels provide more details.

So the null hypothesis, Paul apparently assumed that it was part of his readers' background knowledge that there was a historical Jesus, with being crucified and on the night he was betrayed, seems unrefuted.

And so if Paul and the early Christians believed in a HJ, that is prima facie evidence there is one, unless we have good evidence to think otherwise.

GaryFenza

The Gospels were not ment to be written in complete full deatail.

jbarntt

It is also possible that they did understand the background, but associated it with spiritual Christ, as Doherty maintains. A common image in Mithraism was of Mithras and a Sun god sharing a meal, yet this wouldn't have been viewed as an historical event happening on Earth.

Steven Carr

It says 'betrayed' does it? Paul uses the word elsewhere to say God 'betrayed' Jesus, presumably on the same night (unless Jesus was betrayed twice)

I guess the Jesus-worshippers in Corinth knew the Gospel stories of Jesus 'proving' the resurrection in Matthew 22 in front of large crowds, but did not believe the word of the person they worshipped.

jgibson000

Common? How common? Where and how often -- as compared to other symbols/images associated with Mithras and Mithraism -- do we find it? And when does the image, wherever we find it, date from? And what is your evidence that it was always viewed by initiates as a non earthly non historical event?

Jeffrey Gibson

jbarntt

http://www.well.com/user/davidu/hypercosmic.html

Mithraism was roughly popular in the same time as Christianity developed, i.e., first-fifth centuries. Like all pagan religions, it fell out of favour in the time of Theodious the Great, when he proscribed paganism, ca. 395 AD.

Gods such as Helios were not generally regarded as being historical personages. I don't think my comment in this regard is extraordinary.

In any case it is not my job to educate you re: Mithraism. I am not making any odd claims.

jgibson000

Er... I didn't ask anything about when Mithraism was "popular". I asked what archaeologists have established the dates were for the particular images you said were "common", and what you meant by "common" vis a vis other images associated with Mithras when you claimed that images of Mithras dining with the god of the sun were "common".

Tell that to the Greeks who encountered Helios every day.

Perhaps not. But it is your "job" to back up your claims -- however ordinary -- when called upon to do so.

And yet I note that nothing you say above does so. Why is that?

Good! So -- leaving aside the fact that I asked whether your claims were true, not whether they were "odd", and, more importantly, assuming (1) that you know that your claims are not "odd" because they are claims made by scholars of Mithraism, and (2) that you are well acquainted with this scholarship (how else would you know that these claims about Mithras amd Mithraism are not odd?) -- then it will be easy for you to present your evidence in support of them.

May we see it please?

JG

Ben C Smith

Hobby horse.

Ben.

Steven Carr

Matthew 26:67-68 '67Then they spit in his face and struck him with their fists. Others slapped him and said, "Prophesy to us, Christ. Who hit you?"'

Did the author of Matthew just assume that his readers were familiar with the story which said that Jesus had been blindfolded at that point, otherwise the story makes no sense.

Steven Carr

Clearly early converts to Jesus-worship were perfectly familiar with the Gospel stories, apart from that bit at the end about a corpse rising.