Clivedurdle

Ichabod, hasn't the Jesus Mysteries argued exactly that?

I think Paul probably invented a new religion with strong gnostic, Jewish and mystery parts! A very strong potion indeed!

rlogan

Not sure exactly what you mean CX.

Seems to me in Paul's epistles he just gushes about Jesus. Look at the first chapter of Phillipians or whatever - everything through, for, and about Jesus Christ.

dado

you can actually observe this phenomena happening today, in real time, with the segment of Chabad/Lubavitcher who are proclaiming HaMashiak died in 1994 and his name was Rebbe Schneerson. 10 years after the man's death, the "true believers" are essentialy schismacisizing themselves out of Judaism.

Magdlyn

Toto, thanks for the welcome!

I've only been studying Biblical history for about 3 years, so I have lots to learn.

I took a look at your link. Do you think it refutes The Jesus Mysteries theory in some way? They have extensive refs, notes and bibliography.

What was a minor point? The pagan origins of the Christ myth? The "diabolical mimicry?"

BTW, I wonder, if devil is an English word, and diabolus is Latin, what word did Justin actually use here? Daemon, which means spirit?

Toto

It does not "refute" the JM theory. It only indicates that there are some problems with some of the claims of parallel dying and rising savior Gods. (For example, Krishna was not crucified.) There are enough errors in Graves' work to allow Christian apologists to mock those who accept Graves work as uncritical and gullible. Some mythicists think that Graves set the mythicist cause back by a generation.

It is possible that at some point a careful scholar will go through Graves work and rescue what can be saved, and place the entire field on a more solid academic basis.

The exact extent of the parallels between the Christ myth and the pagan mysteries. Clearly there was some influence, as we can see from Justin Martyr's comment on diabolical mimicry.

Justin did not use the exact term "diabolical mimicry" but clearly meant wicked demons and not spirits. What he said was more convoluted:

From the First Apology:

CHAPTER LIV -- ORIGIN OF HEATHEN MYTHOLOGY.

But those who hand down the myths which the poets have made, adduce no proof to the youths who learn them; and we proceed to demonstrate that they have been uttered by the influence of the wicked demons, to deceive and lead astray the human race. For having heard it proclaimed through the prophets that the Christ was to come, and that the ungodly among men were to be punished by fire, . And these things were said both among the Greeks and among all nations where they [the demons] heard the prophets foretelling that Christ would they put forward many to be called sons of Jupiter, under the impression that they would be able to produce in men the idea that the things which were said with regard to Christ were mere marvellous tales, like the things which were said by the poets specially be believed in; but that in hearing what was said by the prophets they did not accurately understand it, but imitated what was said of our Christ, like men who are in error, we will make plain. . .

CX

He gushes about a spiritual Jesus. He seems to show little or no interest in nor knowledge of an historical jesus. None of the pauline or deuteropauline epistles mention any of the historical details of Jesus described in the Gospels aside from (possibly) the crucifixion motif. This is one of the central theses of the mythicist position. I'm offering an alternate analysis.

Amaleq13

Sorry for the delay in responding to this but I forgot about it until CX responded to it.

I don't see why Paul would be silent simply because he didn't know Jesus personally. This seems especially true if we accept your earlier assertion and assume Jesus was originally a wise, apocalyptic teacher.

The sacrificed, and allegedly historical, Jesus in Paul's letters has allowed himself to be stripped of his spiritual power so that he can be executed. The Son is not described as taking on the appearance of a great preacher. The Son is not described as taking on the likeness of a healing prophet. The Son is described as taking on the lowliness of flesh, stripped of supernatural power, appearing as a slave.

If there must be an historical Jesus in Paul's letters, it seems to me he has to at least fit that depiction.

I don't get the sense he was worried about the Galatians thinking of the Jerusalem group as "real apostles" when he dismisses the relevance of their high reputation. I can't see him feeling free to make that dismissal unless he considered their reputation to be founded on being the first to experience the risen Christ. You certainly get the impression from his letters that the title "apostle" is based entirely on having such an experience. If it was based on whether you had followed a living Jesus, I don't see how he could have gotten away with such a bold assertion.

CX

Well...I'd say mostly he didn't. Note the abysmal failure of his program amongst his fellow jews. We can't know for sure, but I'd be willing to bet he tried it with other Jews who followed Jesus and they said, "Yeah right." and chalked him up as some kind of nut. So he went to the Gentiles who were more receptive to his notions.

Magdlyn

This is all OT, but thanks again toto! I was confused about the use of d(a)emon (slightly incorrectly trans into English as devil), as I thought it meant spirit in Greek, not neccessarily an evil one, and since Justin has said "wicked d(a)emon," and I assume he was not being redundant, I guess I was right. Justin clearly meant wicked spirits. Anyone can have a daemon, and it must not only be a wicked one. I think.

rlogan

Sure thing, CX. Agree totally on that. Forgive me for being dull.

I could not follow it through to the idea he wanted to avoid the accusation of not being an apostle.

You mean avoid HJ details because they were antithetical to Paul's ministry, so he "hid" the HJ form his congregations? That is, if he "showed" the HJ people would then question his teachings?