gstafleu

Let the didache be so, in the gospels (see my response to aa5874) Jesus is repeatedly referred to as the SoG. That means that someone who in the gospels is portrayed as the SoG was in those same gospels sacrificed. Similarly, someone whom Paul refers to as the SoG was according to Paul sacrificed. It doesn't really matter when we think this thought took hold in the wider population, it is clearly present in the NT.

Gerard Stafleu

Malachi151

FYI, "the Son of God" in that text (intro to Mark) is widely acknowledged as a later addition to the text.

I meant, however, that Jesus was referred to as the Son of God in the Gospels, so you aren't saying anything different from what I was saying. The Gospels are late, and reflect a later part of development.

gstafleu

OK, let's say we agree . We still have the question: from where, irrespective of the exact timing of the first occurrence, did the idea of a sacrificed god come? Any OT candidates?

Gerard Stafleu

angela2

I'm not sure that's exactly correct. Especially in John's gospel, Jesus is identified as God.

But you make a good point, and one that is not understood by many Christians when you say that Jesus was also identified in subordinate roles. The best explanation I've heard for this is that Judaism had a hard time with more than one manifestation of God. They were strict monotheists.

But as I said, there were other things going on in NT. What we have is a tension between strict Jewish monotheism and a monotheistic God who has more than one aspect. I don't find this especially shocking. If Jesus was who Christians say he was, it ought to have taken a while for people to grasp it.

jakejonesiv

Hi Malachi151,

I would like to get your opinion on something.

The Excavations in the Mithraeum of the Church of Santa Prisca in Rome seemingly mentions the Mithraic holy meal, being born again, and being saved by the holy blood.

Lines 11-14
He who is piously reborn and created by sweet things (i.e. the Mithraic Eucharist)
You must conduct the rite through cloud covered times together
And here as the first ram runs exactly on his course
And you saved us after having shed the eternal blood

Here is the question; Is it proper to study this inscription (and other primary sources) and compare it with similar elements in Christianity? What is the criteria for determining what is trash (as in the OP) and what is legitimate?

Jake Jones IV

Malachi151

Its certainly proper to study these issues, the problem is that many people have made a bunch of poor comparisons. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be such comparisons, but its not hard to find bad scholarship on this subject, which I myself may be engaging in.

I'm just saying that there needs to be an effort to be more critical of JM claims, by people who are JM advocates, because if you let too much trash into the house it starts to stink.

If there isn't some good self-policing, then the already disreputable field just becomes more disreputable.

jakejonesiv

Well, let me air my pet peeve with Acharya S. and some other mythicists. She almost never documents her points with citations of primary sources. It is usually to secondary sources, even when doiing something as mudane as quoting Justin Martyr. ARGGGHHHH!

The few times I have had the patience to follow the trail to the end, IMO she often has a valid point, not always but often enough to make it interesting.

Here is an example of how to do it right. The 1924 version of Die Petruslegende, by Arthur Drews is available online at
http://www.radikalkritik.de/Petruslegende.htm
This is in German.

Frank Zindler has provided an English translation, The Legend of St. Peter, American Atheist Press, 1997. Zindler's translation is quite helpful. It is based on the first edition from 1910. Zindler has done an outstanding job in that he included a large appendix of the translated source texts mentioned by Drews. One does not have to scurry about to read the relevant portions of the New Testament, Justin Martyr, Ovid, Lucian of Samosata, etc. Whether one agrees with Drews and Zindler or not, Zindler derserves a great deal of credit for his efforts.

At the time of the translation, Zindler was unaware of the 1924 update. Perhaps we can look forward to another edition in the future. This would be helpful, because my edition of The Legend of St. Peter contains blank pages at Forword vi, page 10, page 60, and page 112.

On the other hand, I think some scholars set the bar too high, so as to exclude parallels. I think there is a bias, perhaps unintentional, to keep Christianity unique.

Jake Jones IV

Malachi151

BTW, I must brag, I just bought a 2nd edition copy of The Christ Myth by Drews last night from abebooks. I'm still looking for a 1st edition, but this will be nice.

Jayrok

For years I've had basically the same question: Where in the OT or Hebrew scriptures does Yahweh tell, or insinuate to, the Israelites that he is going to come to earth himself (or send his son) to die for the collective sins of mankind?

aa5874

And that's 'tons of references'? Give me a break.

You should care about how Jesus is potrayed if you want to make statements about him. According to the Gospels, Jesus was not referred to as the son of God by the multitudes upto his crucifixtion. A character was referred to as son of God possibly 100 years later.