fatpie42

You wrote:
That seems pretty clear-cut. I had a feeling that you might have meant that as a rhetorical question to lead me to some other conclusion, but it seemed like a weird way to do it and I didn't know what you were getting at.

So I replied as follows:
I asked whether you were serious or if I had misunderstood. At no point in your response to this statement did you say that I had misrepresented your views. In fact from the way you wrote it seemed that your were berating me for not accepting the crazy view that Jesus had nothing to do with Paul's understanding of salvation:
If you don't understand 'pagan salvation' why did you bring it up?

If I decide to compare two different stories which existed during the same sort of period in history and ask whether there is more evidence for one being historical than the other - why is that controversial?

It's not that I won't justify my position. It's that I have no idea why you will happily dismiss one as fiction yet insist we embrace the other as rooted in historical fact. We have no evidence that Dionysos wasn't a historical figure, so does that mean we must believe that his stories have roots in a real person? Can we do the same with Herakles and Achilles?

Are you telling me that pagans didn't believe that Dionysos was a real historical person? Evidence?

No we aren't. We are talking about historicity. Unless you can give good reasons for it, salvation is a non-sequitur. Please explain what relevance salvation has in this conversation for a non-Christian?

There are many differences. All religions are unique in different ways. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean that one religious figure is more likely to be historical than another. For a figure to be historical there has to be some historical evidence for them. Neither Dionysos nor Jesus have any historical evidence and that is why we dismiss both of them as purely mythical.

I never said that Jesus was a pagan god. Cease with this straw man. I said in no uncertain terms that he was a Christian god evolved out of Jewish tradition. In any case, you still haven't explained what relevance this has for historicity.

I don't need any more evidence that it didn't happen than I need evidence that the calming of the storm or walking on water didn't happen. If it is implausible and there is no evidence outside of the Bible I am quite justified in labelling it as 'most likely myth'.

Our knowledge about when dinosaurs went extinct relies on the lessening of dinosaur fossils. If the lack of dinosaur fossils isn't enough reason to say that they went extinct then we can still pose them as alive and well. I am pointing out that your understanding of how history works seems dodgy.

If there is no evidence for something that doesn't mean that it probably happened.

Okay, now apply this reasoning to Dionysos. Who was supposed to have written about him? In which case, can we assert that Dionysos was historical?

Elijah

Confusion confusion.
To see if you do and to see if it is appropriate to compare it to Christian salvation.
You can’t use an understanding of one religion/mythology you can’t support to backup your understanding/interpretation of another religion. If you could properly illustrate the salvation involved in the pagan mythology then you could compare it to Christian salvation but since you can’t then I don’t see the point in trying to force a comparison between the two.
They could have historical roots. That’s why I think that trying to use them to prove a mythical origin of Christ is a little wacky. I’m not saying they do just that proving they don’t is difficult so it’s pointless to use as evidence for a mythical origin to Jesus.

I have no idea what people thought about Dionysos. It’s you who think you know enough about him to use him as an example for what you believe is going on with Jesus.
Can you understand salvation, be it Christian or pagan, without a historical figure? Can you show that anyone understood salvation coming from a mythical figure? If you can’t then a mythical salvation figure comparison doesn’t hold much weight.
I don’t consider that an answer to my question I don’t want to assume you see every understanding of god as different versions of the same genie.
I said that is how you are trying to understand him. Like a pagan myth about Dionysus.

It doesn’t have relevance for historicity. Just your understanding of what is going on in the NT that is being discussed. If you read it like a pagan myth/god and not a Jewish messiah I don’t see you getting it correct. By Christian God you mean Jesus was like the pagan mythical gods or something else?

It’s your right and my recommendation that you do just that.
And if there is no tangible evidence for something that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Especially if it was an isolated incident 2000 years ago that wouldn’t leave that much tangible evidence so the expectation of finding any is almost none.

Lost me. Why are we back on Dionysus again? We can assert that the argument of there should be mentions of Jesus by Jewish historians isn’t justified with names or texts.

GakuseiDon

May or may not be useful, but this website has a wonderful collection of quotes from ancient sources dealing with Dionysus:
http://www.theoi.com/Olympios/DionysosMyths.html

fatpie42

Thanks

Solo

It almost looks, spin, like you cannot handle a paragraph of my writing except by cutting it up and then attacking the isolated snippets stripped of their context.

So, in short, you have no reasonable response to the issues I have raised: you asked me how I knew that the Jerusalem group had any beliefs about Jesus. Now obviously we don't know directly what they thought and what functions their "Jesus" had but the context of Paul's letters narrows that down. Gal 3:1 invokes Paul's teaching of "crucified Christ" and asks "who fooled you into abandoning my teaching". I take that question to be a rhetorical one. It's not a mystery who was poaching in Paul's flock. So I asked:

You countered by accusing me of setting up a 'false dichotomy'. So I said, ok, it's a strawman, so you tell me why Paul called them foolish and the law-mongers, bewitchers. To which you replied nonchalantly:

Well, first and above all, they would be foolish in Paul's eyes in closing their minds and hearts to salvation. But that's not the point, not a valid alternative to the Jesus Christ portrayal.

So, "a" an "b" is a natural dichotomy, obviously; unless you set up some (as yet unrevealed) fantastic scenario, Paul's teaching of the cross referenced commonly held views of a either a mythical Jesus or facts about him as a historical person.

So, let's say the Jerusalem group had its own mythical messianic "Jesus" who was not crucified. It's possible. As a matter of fact, the Teacher of Righteousness would have been available as a (Jewish) model to create an idol of a personalized wisdom and an agent of apocalyptic judgment. I am not completely discarding the possibility that this or something similar in fact did happen, it's just that noone has convinced me of it.

But, Paul asserts that Jesus Christ was born under the the law, and crucified (through the justice of law, Rom 8:4) and if the Mosaic law was the ultimate measure of things between man and God, then Christ died to no purpose (Gal 2:21, as a step to 3:1). Again it's possible that the death of Jesus was simply a mythical hyperbole of sacrifice, but the problem with that operation - cognitively - is that it becomes quickly a meaningless patter when the earthly subjection of Jesus to law is invoked as Paul's point of argument (as its agonized apex). IOW, Paul says to the Galatians: ARE YOU SO DENSE THAT YOU FORGOT THE VERY LAW THAT THEY PREACH TO YOU (BUT DON'T KEEP) IS THE ONE THAT WAS USED TO JUSTFY KILLING JESUS ? Now the implication, here is very strong, that Jesus himself did not keep the law and this therefore becomes the stumbling block to the Jews who are true to law - such as Paul was before his conversion.
But Paul received some very special bodily revelations (from God, he believed) that made him change his mind about Jesus. Paul believed God revealed to him that Jesus - though he did break the law - was doing it in carrying his mission of salvation.

In other words, Paul invited his flocks in Galatia and elsewhere to save Jesus from the infamy he suffered in flesh and in law. Where Paul was profound and where the later gospel creativity "lost" his mystical unio, was in Paul's core assumption: It's not just that God saves man; if faith is to work it has to be a two-way street in which man also "saves" God ! If Jesus was just another criminal - and the Galatians knew in law he was - his death was just an act of meaningless barbarity, because he was (Paul testifies through his own "illness") a faithful servant of God's purpose in breaking that law. So, hard as it may be for you to believe, Paul saw himself as called upon by God to save Jesus of Nazareth (and I don't care if he was from Capernaum !) among those who were in flesh and judged by Moses' standards ! That's Paul's mystery, my friend !

Paul references this reality as "kata sarka". He says specifically he no longer references anyone in that "reality", including Christ, although he did previously (2 Cr 5:16).


the need to posit... some form of crystalization of his thoughts....:constern01:... hey, why don't we leave it at this deep thought ?

Jiri

Amaleq13

I've obviously got no problem with that position since it is what I've been trying to explain to you. :huh:

fatpie42

Yeah, I know. Maybe we'd be best off forgetting that little tangent and starting again.

Well it's all very complicated isn't it? 'Salvation' is a very Christian term (not Jewish, though it does have links with the Jewish concept of 'deliverance'). Then again, all religions have something that is almost like salvation because all religions seem to be striving for 'something better' whether it be in an afterlife or within our life in the world, or both! (i.e. in Christianity there is heaven in the afterlife, but there is also the second coming where Jesus returns to Earth)

I suppose the issue I have with this whole 'salvation' angle is that it doesn't appear to reveal very much concerning the issue at hand. What we want to know is whether Jesus was historical or not. What Paul believes is involved in salvation seems like a non-sequitur in that discussion.

I couldn't agree more.

As I keep saying, I see salvation as irrelevant to the current discussion. You raised the issue of 'salvation', not me. I would actually be quite interested to hear how you think it relates to our present discussion. You must think it is somehow relevant, else you would not have mentioned it.

The thing is that it has long been presumed that Herakles, Achilles, Dionysos, etc. are all mythical with no historical background. Jesus, it seems to me, has been given special treatment in that he has not had the same presumption. The thing is that where myths have intersected with real life, we have normally judged the real life events by the more mundane historical documents rather than relying on sacred texts. In the case of the Jesus myth, we don't have any extra-Biblical sources by which to judge the major events of Christianity. Where Jesus does intersect with real people, his story tells us very little which seems reliable. Pilate, as I said, would be unlikely to have come to Jerusalem to validate the execution of a man condemned for blasphemy against the Jewish God. There is also the example of John the Baptist, where some of the events tie-in with Josephus' account, but oddly enough they are said to happen in a different order. With the gospels acting as such a poor historical document it is hard to imagine how we can realistically talk about Jesus being 'based on a historical figure' since even if he was based on a historical figure there may be absolutely nothing accurately reported about him within the gospel document.

One thing I find funny is when Christian apologeticists claim the Talmud to be an extra-Biblical source mentioning Jesus. The problem? The Talmud speaks of a man called Jesus who was executed - by being stoned to death :banghead: If we cannot even be sure that this 'historical figure' was crucified, in what way can he be said to be 'Jesus'. You claim that we should accept the crucifixion because it is plausible, but is that really enough? Don't we need some evidence external to the Bible to speak meaningfully about a 'historical figure'?

Actually you've answered my question to my satisfaction by saying earlier:
"They could have historical roots."

If you accept that Dionysos could be based on a historical figure you are at least being consistent.

This sounds fallacious to me. You can't argue that Jesus was historical just because people believed he was historical. I can easily imagine a mythical salvation figure, but I also fully recognise that many of the believers felt it important that he was historical.

Think about the story of ascension. What does it mean to say that Jesus 'rose into heaven'. Jesus is said to have risen into the air and dissapeared into the clouds going back to heaven. Does this mean they believed that heaven was in the sky? Or does it represent Jesus' return to heaven just like offering prayers upwards represents sending a message to heaven for believers today? In any case, the three-tier world in stories is mythological. There are most certainly mythological elements in the gospels whether people believe the events were historical or not. Of course, the people writing the gospels did not see the initial events and most likely never saw a historical figure of Jesus even if there was one.

What is it you are trying to say here. You want to say that there are similarities between religions and that therefore there might be a kind of 'salvation' within paganism. On the other hand you don't want me to consider paganism as too closely linked with Christianity. You have me balancing on a tightrope here, but you haven't ever explained why.

What is it about Christianity which you are worried I am seeing as too pagan? What mistake are you concerned that I might be making? If you make yourself clear rather than skirting around the issue, perhaps I will be able to give a better answer to your questions.

I think that the gospels have elements of the Jewish apocalyptic tradition. One example, as I said above, is the account of the ascension.

If none of this has relevance to historicity why the hell are we discussing it?

Like the Jews riding purple dinosaurs for example? There's no evidence that riding purple dinosaurs didn't happen. According to this criteria, if there's no evidence that it didn't happen we must leave it as a possibility that it might have happened. You see the problem here?

Okay, let's imagine that Jesus was historical. We are imagining a man honoured as a messiah with a whole gaggle of followers. Later after his death his followers started a movement which became bigger and bigger and now spans across the globe. The religious believers honour relics of Jesus, his disciples and the saints who came after them. Yet you are expecting me to believe that Jesus' followers didn't ever preserve anything which might act as evidence that Jesus once lived? That this hugely influential movement was not considered worth a mention at the time when the relevant events are meant to have occurred. Do you really think that is plausible?

The problem with what you have said is that we would expect tangible evidence.

Jewish historians:
Philo
Justus of Tiberius

Roman historians:
Seneca
Pliny the Elder
Martial
Plutarch
Juvenal
Apuleius
Pausanius
Dio Casius

Right, there're your names. Happy?

spin

OK, so you won't clarify what you said. Not a good sign.

You handle responses the way you do. I do it differently. If you really think I miss context significance, just complain.

You have not raised one issue that is reasonable in the scenario that Paul didn't need any prior Jesus for his religion.

OK.

OK.

And you may be right. It is a reasonable guess, but our understandings of what Paul said are so polluted by the history of apologetics as to what Paul meant. However, I can readily accept it for argument's sake, if it means that much. It's just going beyond the evidence and while I try to stay within as much as possible....

OK.

Should I ask about what you mean "not the point, not a valid alternative to the Jesus Christ portrayal"? Your following statement otherwise seems like a non sequitur.

What Paul says with his put-down to the Galatians concerns the Galatians. You are not dealing with that relationship between writer and readers, but with your attempt to reconstruct of Paul's thought through the Galatians and onto the outsiders how they viewed Jesus. This is a vain and hopeless attempt on your part.

Paul contrasts his crucified christ against the performance of the law throughout Galatians. There is no sign of his opponents' thoughts on Paul's savior dressed in the title of messiah. We only know that they advocated torah adherence, which to Paul was counter his Jesus based religion. Performance of the law was denial of the Pauline notion of Jesus's salvific act through his crucifixion. The Galatians swayed by torah adherence meant rejection of Jesus's crucifixion. Hence, the rhetorical "Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly exhibited as crucified!" That seems to me to be contained in Gal 3:1.

(Forget the ToR. A high priest is anointed, but not god's messianic military champion.)

You seem now to be arguing against a mythicist. If Paul believed Jesus was real all of your information about Paul's savior/messiah follows. It doesn't give you anything about a prior figure to Paul's revelation.

So Paul believed that Jesus was real. We already knew that. God revealed Jesus to him, so he says. It doesn't help you know that there was a prior Jesus.

If you want.

It seems I can never stimulate what justifies your beliefs.


spin

Elijah

If you don’t consider Jesus a salvation figure and you aren’t trying to compare them to savior pagan myths then there is no point discussing it but if you do then you need to explain the nature of the salvation received in each.
Seems unusual to take an unsupported understanding of Dionysus and trying to apply it to Jesus then.
I think this is how the conversation between us started.
I’m trying to understand your take on the salvation here and elsewhere.
Jesus should be given special treatment compared to pagan gods because it’s a story of a Jewish Messiah not a pagan god.

Just because we don’t have evidence of someone’s existence and can’t reconstruct their life doesn’t meant they didn’t exist and we should assume they had a mythical origin. What kind of evidence to you expect to have been produced and preserved unaltered to this point? How many of his first followers do you think could write well enough to leave something worth preserving behind? Not being able to speak meaningfully about a historical figure isn’t required or an excuse to create a mythical origin.
Yes you can imagine whatever you want even a mythical salvation figure but can you show that anyone believed in the mythical version of a salvation figure like you are suggesting, either pagan or Jewish?
You can interpret the ascension literally or allegorically or as a vision depending on your personal beliefs. Are you saying that you think the writers of the gospels are writing what they consider a fictional story or what?
I’m still trying to get a base understanding of what you are suggesting here in regards to these belief systems and where you are getting these beliefs from. I don’t know how salvation is achieved in a mythological ideology or how you understanding Christian salvation. I’m just trying to figure you out and what you yourself have figured out.
Because we can’t communicate about the ideology at hand if I don’t know what your understanding of the concepts being discussed are.
Do you have an understanding of Jesus as the messiah and what is that understanding?
I leave open the possibility that dinosaurs live even until now. It’s a very very small possibility below even aliens walking around but you can’t prove anything about 2000 years ago. Comparing the possibility of a purple dinosaur 2000 years ago to a Jewish guy with a messiah complex that gets executed isn’t a rational comparison.
What do you expect them to have kept why? An old robe? A sandal? Lock of his hair? Does that prove anything about Jesus back then? What do you expect his earlier followers to do that would have proven Jesus’ existence to you now? Any evidence they did have would have been handled so many times from then till now that there is no way it would have preserved unaltered/tampered.

It isn’t until Paul, when a more educated, less working class follower started joining up do we have any letters worth keeping about the guy, but that doesn’t mean that’s when the belief in him started.
Not really because it’s the Remsberg’s list again. Philo wasn’t a historian but a philosopher and had no reason to mention Jesus in his texts. Justus left no text to see if he should have mentioned Jesus. And the Romans I see no need going into each unless you think one of them should have mentioned an executed Jew.

Solo

I have raised 2 Corinthians 5:16 which clearly indicates that Paul had information from humans about Jesus prior to having revelations about him from God:

From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer.

No, spin, I value your historical and linguistic knowledge. So our exchanges are useful to me. It's just that sometimes quirks get in the way of an intelligent debate. Everyone has quirks, including myself.

Jiri