CaliNORML

Stories of the sacrifice, such as Jesus' represents are common in religions, in fact some say they have evidence there were 16 total reported "saviors" crucified in history, both before and after Jesus. There is a huge debate about this among many believers and non-believers. I first heard of Bacchus\Dionysus from Dr Joseph Campbell during a lecture that was recorded, there is quite a history that goes with that story.

Another story is from Egypt, funny how much of Egyptain culture seeped into the Hebrew culture during the years from Joseph and his coat until the Exodus. Egypt was known for their gift of stories and many Hebrew and Egypt links are made by researchers today, over 500 years you would think each would influence the other, perhaps they did in more ways than we can think or prove as yet. This story of sacrifice was also there just as it seems to be in most others.

Christianity took many practices from local areas like Greece, such as drinking wine as blood, Bacchus was the god of wine, as was his blood. The grain communion wafer a Catholic eats during mass is familiar to the holding up of a stalk of grain in the Greek culture of ceremony, yet the Romans marked it as Pagan and mocked it, but today still practice the essence of that ritual.

I look upon these beliefs much like Aesop's fables, when I hear; "One day a fox and a crow were chatting..." I do not start to believe there was a talking fox and crow once living and real creatures. Instead I listen to the story and come to find out that vanity is a folly, as the crow drops the cheese she had to sing for the fox who flattered her.

If told this story with a Flamingo and a Jaguar instead of a fox and a crow, is it any different? Shall I go to war against those who believe it was a flamingo as I was told it was a crow, saving them from their own disbelief? Or should I just take it for the meaning it contains?

No matter the cultural local masks used the core element at the heart of the story remains the same, sacrifice. I guess no matter who it was that was Crucified, Jesus or one of the other 15 who are said to have had met the same end, I get it. The sacrifice of the act is all that is important, and the lesson each carries with in it is the truth. That enlightement is what most seek through religion after all, the truth behind the act and the reasons for them. Why should it only have to be Jesus to carry any physical evidence of this event in order to believe in sacrifice? The same sacrifice at the core of every account of this event ever told is central, the minute details of exactly who, exactly when, exactly where, and exactly how are not the standard that proves it true or not, it is just a universal human concept put into an physical reference for us to try and understand.

KMS

A few links to those 15 reported others who were crucified. (or maybe not)

HERE

HERE

HERE

Amaleq13

Do they have him in Paul's letters?

jjramsey

In 1 Corinthians 7:29-31, Paul seems to expect the end to come soon. In non-Pauline letters, the author of 2 Peter (whoever he was) talks about a day being like a thousand years to God and vice versa, apparently in an attempt to deflect the criticism of "Where is the promise of his coming?" (2 Peter 3:1ff). So the expectation of the end of the world coming soon is not solely in the Gospels.

jjramsey

Um, that's from Kersey Graves, who is so unreliable that even the Internet Infidels disown him: http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...er/graves.html

Doug Shaver

So, religious cults invariably left evidence of their existence unless they were deliberately secretive?

Can you be more specific about the nature of that evidence?

jjramsey

Not necessarily, but in the case of Christianity, the evidence is not only lacking prior to the first century, but the evidence points to it starting in the first century. If you want to show that Christianity existed prior to this, then you have to explain why Christians chose to make themselves look newer than they really were, even in an era where antiquity was prized and innovation thought of as suspicious.

Amaleq13

But that is an Apocalyptic Paul not an Apocalyptic Prophet Jesus and, IIRC, Paul never connects his apocalyptic expectations to anything said by Jesus.

Sounds like the answer to my question is "No" (ie there is no Apocalyptic Prophet Jesus in Paul) and to suggest that a conception of the historical Jesus as Apocalyptic Prophet is consistent with all the evidence is simply untrue.

Amaleq13

As for precursors to Christianity, how about the Theraputae?

jjramsey

So? Why would we expect Paul to always say "Jesus said" before alluding to a teaching of Jesus, especially since in 1 Corinthians 7:29-31, he was not trying to teach that the end was near, but rather pointing it out as a reason backing his ethical pronouncements. That is, he was saying, "Since the end of the world is near, do X." Given the brief treatment he gives the end of the world, it looks more like a reminder of what the Corinthians already believed, not a new teaching. The "Jesus said" could easily be already understood.

That would only make sense if Paul wrote something inconsistent with an apocalyptic Jesus. As it stands, we have Paul pointing to an imminent end of the world. We have the Gospels saying Jesus taught the imminent end of the world. We have 2 Peter addressing disappointment that this imminent end seems to be rather late. The simplest explanation for this is that Jesus was apocalyptic, and Paul alluded to this teaching.

jjramsey

That is an old enough canard that S.J. Case dealt with it already. See pages 106-112 of The Historicity of Jesus. The case for the Theraputae relies on Epiphanius, who not only dates from the fourth century but has historically been of uneven reliability.