GakuseiDon

Yes, I'd be curious to hear this as well. Why did Earl think he was right in "The Jesus Puzzle", and what convinced him he was not right by the time he wrote "Jesus Neither God Nor Man"? What new evidence came his way or new analysis made him change his mind?

For example, he wrote on his website many years ago (my bold):

For the average pagan and Jew, the bulk of the workings of the universe went on in the vast unseen spiritual realm (the "genuine" part of the universe) which began at the lowest level of the "air" and extended ever upward through the various layers of heaven. Here a savior god like Mithras could slay a bull, Attis could be castrated, and Christ could be hung on a tree by "the god of that world," meaning Satan

Yet above, in response to criticism by Ehrman, Earl writes (my bold):

First, although the words say so, I needed to have stressed that it was only in the context of interpretations within the mystery cults themselves, and not those of the common man-in-the-street or the average writer speaking of the traditional myths (such as the historian Tacitus or the geographer Pausanias), that I am claiming that a reorientation to the upper world took place for the activities of the savior gods, under the influence of Platonism.

Of course, Earl's change of view is a sign of an open and honest mind, and is to his credit. But WHAT caused him to change his mind?

aa5874

I made NO mistake. I have not claimed "early Christianity" was monolithic.

I have specifically claimed that Pliny does NOT uncover Pauline literature.

Paul mentioned Jesus over 180 times and claimed he was Crucified and raised from the dead.

Pliny the elder mentioned NOTHING of Jesus called Christ, Nothing about a crucifixion and Nothing about a resurrection of the Jesus called Christ in the Pauline literature.

Pliny's letters to Trajan support my claim that Pauline literature and revealed Gospel were NOT composed, Not known, nor circulated in the Roman Empire including Rome and Bithynia since c 37-41 CE or during the reign of King Aretas.

You keep making the SAME mistake. There is NO actual credible evidence for an early first century Paul.

You yourself have argued that Pauline letters regarded as authentic are really manipulated letters.

In effect, we only have evidence of Late writings and NO early "authentic" writings without the manipulations have ever been found.

The Pauline writings we have in our possession are Late writings once you argue they have been manipulated.

The Pauline letters mentioned a character called Jesus Christ about 180 times and Pliny himself is completely unaware of a Jesus cult which should have been known and established for a least 80 years with Churches, Bishops, Deacons, Martyrs in Rome itself.

Pliny lived in Rome yet had to torture Christians to find out what they really believed.

There is NO corroborative evidence for such thing as "authentic 1st century Paul".

Not even the Church writers knew when Paul really lived and wrote.

1. Eusebius and Origen claimed Paul was aware of gLuke but died under Nero.

2. In the Muratorian Canon it is claimed the Pauline letters were composed After Revelation.

Please be specific. What "extant early literature" are you talking about??

There is NO credible "extant early literature" that corroborates a single verse of any Pauline writing or that the Pauline writings were composed before c 68 CE. Not even the author of Acts who posed as a contemporary of Saul/Paul acknowledged any Pauline letters up to c 59-62 CE or when Festus was procurator of Judea.

Please be specific. Where do "we see" a riotous diversity in the 1st century and before c 68 CE??

Please direct us to the sources of your "riotous diversity" in the 1st century??

What actual recovered dated sources of the 1st century mentioned Jesus Christ that was cruicified and was raised from the dead??

There is Nothing. We all know this.

The Pauline Revealed Jesus was NOT from heaven--you are looking in the wrong direction.

The Pauline Revealed Jesus was from the GRAVE--the First Born of the dead.

Colossians 1:18 KJV Early 1st century Pauline writings are like Flat Earth theories--No actual credible evidence will ever be produced.

This is unacceptable.

The abundance of evidence not only support Late Pauline writings, 2nd century or later, but that the Pauline writings may have been deliberately composed to dupe and mis-lead.

GakuseiDon

It's those indicators that I am urging people to investigate. My last post with the colors wasn't an argument, it was a clarification on what you are arguing. I put that out there so that people on this thread can be clear what you are arguing as a basis for further investigation. Obviously you are convinced that you have evidence to support your conclusions, just as no doubt Acharya S is convinced she has evidence to support her conclusions, and MountainMan is convinced that he has evidence for his conclusions. But I am asking people to regard you and me as biased sources. I am urging them to investigate your conclusions for themselves.

I think it is very relevant. AFAICT no scholars of mystery religions have presented anything similar to your concept that the myths of the saviour gods like Attis and Osiris were carried out in a "World of Myth". But why not? What's stopping them? The impact on Christianity? But since HJ hegemony rules, why would anyone even think that such pagan views would impact Christiantity?

I suggest a likely explanation that scholars of ancient religions are unaware of a "World of Myth" concept amongst the pagans is that there wasn't one. But I understand that you believe you have the evidence. Fair enough. Your supporters believe you, but I recommend that they investigate this for themselves. (I can understand why they don't want to. The driving force for most is the impact on Jesus. They don't care whether pagans believd in a "World of Myth" or not. But I DO care, since I find ancient thought among the pagans interesting in its own right.)

One of my frustrations is that when I press you on the pagan side of the equation you continually drag this back to Paul. But surely it is obvious that I am focused on the pagan side. I want people to examine your claims there. Let's see if the evidence supports your conclusion. Let's build a picture of what pagans REALLY thought back then. Then we can move to Paul.

maryhelena

OK, GDon - lets have it....

In simple terms, not a lot of details, what is your position on what the 'pagan side' of this discussion believed in. Just facts - as far as they are available. No interpretations of any assumed secret goings on within ancient cults.

Earl, as far as I can make out, is suggesting a "relocation" of pagan myths to an other worldly location - not by the ordinary believer - but within secret parts of the cults. 'Indicators' being suggestive of this.

Do you think that Earl's position would be far better if he left the pagan side of things behind - and just opted for 'Paul' being the originator of the idea of a "relocation" of ancient mythology to a purely spiritual/heavenly realm for his JC ideas?

Clivedurdle

May I quote from Wiki? What precisely are we discussing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Heaven

Clivedurdle

Hmm

"Pagan" is a propaganda term.

By using the concept of equation this sets up an either or, self other, us them distinction.

But I thought we were looking at millennia of syncretism, of sharing of ideas, of co-evolution, of one idea meeting a second and producing a third.

There were Egyptian,Persian, Greek, Assyrian, Roman, Carthaginian empires were there not or did I miss something? There was a Library at Alexander that collected everything and disseminated it wasn't there?

Steven Carr

So Abe ignores Paul's talk about a Jerusalem above us.

maryhelena

Tammuz - an "abomination".........seems to me that talk of syncretism of pagan ideas re the dying and rising god with Jewish ideas was a rather thorny issue....'Paul' would have had a difficult job on his hands with his christ crucified and resurrected....whether in heaven or in the underworld. Ah - but that leave him with terra-firma as his starting point. 'Paul' needs a physical execution before he can start building a "relocation" argument. Otherwise he is in danger of being charged with that 'abomination'....

Clivedurdle

Why?, a few hundred years of Greek influences, a civil war, gymnasia in Jerusalem. Paul writing in Greek.

Isn't the idea of "The Most High" Persian and therefore "pagan"?

I recommend Tom Holland Persian Fire.

Is that not a precise definition of xianity?

maryhelena

Indeed - the question is how did 'Paul' 'get there'??

Did Paul use some secret pagan ideas re "relocation" as the basis of support for his own ideas - or did Paul come up with this "relocation" idea himself. Seems to me that Paul might well be the originator of this idea - which would mean that turning to secret ideas of pagan cults is not only a problematic thing to be doing - it is also unnecessary.


Paul's Christ crucified - looks to me it was an idea that was 'way out' for both the pagans and the Jews....