Niall Armstrong

(this discussion was no longer welcome in the “Doherty and Cephas/Paul” thread, so moved here)

As ever, you cut right to the heart! "The mythic sphere" is, I suppose, the same as Mircea Eliade's "in illa tempore", the undefined time of myth; both an uncertain past and super-real present. It is a modern term (hardly Doherty’s invention), as the ancients didn't create the subject comparative religion, but you can hardly read the oft-discussed parts of Plutarch and other descriptions of pre-christian religion and not come across events happening in mythic landscapes. Euhemerization as a concept hardly makes sense without a mythic sphere where the original stories took place. But then perhaps you would suggest that Euhemerus was correct, and Zeus actually was an ancient king? (If so, I’d love a new thread on it.) Please pardon me for not bothering getting any sources. The sources for what, anyway?

And, as mythicists are fond to point out, "of the flesh" and "born of woman" make more sense in the description of a mythic being than of one recognized (and, according to historicists, taken for granted) as a human. Would be fun if you could bring some examples of someone like David Koresh being described as "of the flesh" or "born of a woman". (It is strange looking back upon all the squabbling performed about these terms. And even stranger looking forward to more of the same.)

I'm unsure whether there really is a need for a crucifixion in Zion. (Which verses is it you base that on, again?) Very well that a stumbling block had been laid there, and that crucifixion (or is it the divine sacrifice of Hebrews?) is that stumbling block. But this combination of belief and OT reference is hardly the same as stating that "Jesus was crucified in Zion". IMVHO the “stumbling block” is merely a good metaphor for the difficulty of converting people (particularly Jews) to the gospel. That it is in Zion is from OT, and not a necessary part of the argument when this term is used in the Epistles.
And don't forget that Zion is, after all, a moveable feast (IIRC) descending towards earth in Revelation. If anyone really wished to state that Jesus was crucified there, for some obscure prophesy-fulfilling reason, they probably could have, by envisioning that Zion was already descending towards earth.
When it comes to the exact location of the crucifixion in Paul's thoughts I tend to opt for the vague option. Just as no-one can positively identify where Mithras sacrificed the bull (someone might say in the zodiac, but I imagine the worshippers might have had various beliefs), so, I believe, Paul and his comrades did not feel compelled to tell anyone where Jesus was crucified.
But had Jesus been crucified in Jerusalem, then his name would have been as inseparable from that place as Koresh’s is from Waco (And, if you forgive me, just as Waco reminds us that he was a whacko, so Jerusalem would have reminded everyone of the holiness of Jesus of Nazareth. So many silences, so little time!)
And while we’re at it, since Hebrews and Revelations positively identifies Zion with the Heavenly Jerusalem, is it not safest to say that this interpretation probably also is valid for the three other instances of the word being used in the Epistles?


Keep up the good work! :notworthy: It would be a shame if G'Don ever was converted to the MJ position. Who would then keep us on our toes? (As we still are awaiting work published in peer-reviewed journals.... )

GakuseiDon

It depends on what you mean by "mythic sphere". If you mean "an uncertain time on earth", then fair enough. Though ancient writers were keen to place the events of their gods into a historical context. I think Paul suggests that Jesus was crucified at some point after Moses, and "in the fullness of time", which suggests a time recent to Paul. Ben C Smith started a thread here on this:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=197768

There are a few examples of it being used around the time of Paul to describe human beings, which I think are better examples. The thing is, the examples provide evidence that Paul regarded Jesus as "earthly" rather than a "sublunar/non-earthly" entity.

Paul says this as well:

Romans 11:26 So all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The Deliverer will come out of Zion, and He will turn away ungodilness from Jacob; for this is My covenant with them, when I take away their sins."

This seems to be Paul associating Jesus to Jerusalem.

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that Paul thought that the heavenly Jerusalem was descending towards earth while Jesus was being crucified? And how does Christ being crucified in the heavenly Jerusalem become a stumbling block to Jews, and especially foolishness to Gentiles? Isn't this consistent with what you are claiming about similar beliefs about Mithras, after all?

Where is the silence, IYO? Paul seems to associate Jesus with Jerusalem in Romans 11:26, as per the above.

It would depend on the context, I imagine.

Thanks Niall! At the least, I think mythicism should be looked into, by both mythicists and historicists.

Steven Avery

Hi Gakusei .. yes, examining the mishegas of mythicist manipulations can
strenghten ones understanding of the beauty and majesty of the scripture text.

Shalom,
Steven Avery