Petergdi

Steve,

You should be aware that there is a big gap between the fact that Christians often acknowledged Greek monotheism as being the worship of the one true God under a different name and any idea that Christians had any sympathy for Greek polytheism.

Peter.

Juststeve

Petergdi:

I wasn't suggesting otherwise, only that pagans who were used to worshiping Zeus/Jupiter might have found it easy to transfer allegiance while still being familiar with the old forms.

That leaves aside just how monotheistic Christianity is for another discussion.

Steve.

spamandham

It seems to me the purpose of the thread is obvious....it's to investigate the hypothesis that James and John are mythical characters from a Jupiter cult. This has nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus.

spamandham

Yes, the purpose is to show they failed to understand, but it incidentally demonstrates that these characters believe they have the power to summon lightning, and as sons of the lightning god - explicitly named as such, they would have such power, and from the story, it is clear that they do.


When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, "Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them ?"

Yes, yes. It's just coincidence that Jesus refers to these two as sons of Jupiter and they are so silly that they believe they actually have the power to summon lightning. This must have actually happened rather than a writer being the product of his culture, which we know is impossible.

Doug Shaver

You seem to be suggesting that there cannot be any other credible interpretation of what Luke says. I don't agree.

Elijah

The disciples have the power to heal previously. (9:6) Again when you look at the miracles performed in the story; the healing lepers, raising a widow’s child, controlling weather and multiplying food supplies (Elisha does it more closely to what Jesus does though), all come from one of the few example of a figure with the power of faith they are trying to portray Jesus as having. The calling of fire down seems like just another attempt to place Jesus on equal footing with his predecessors. The problem is that to show that he had the power without him actually using it, which this passage does by saying even the disciples could do this but he was trying the forgiveness thing instead of the wrath deal.

I think you look to Greek philosophy for the ideas in Christianity but the fantastic claims (powers, virgin birth) I think come more from their ideas of faith leading to power that is found in the OT, not the poems of Homer or other Greek poets.

Toto

This has nothing to do with whether Jesus existed or not.

I don't see James and John as being mythical characters from a Jupiter "cult" (Cult? more likely the main religion of the Roman Empire, not some small weird group that didn't own any real estate.)

According to Dwight MacDonald (The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark (or via: amazon.co.uk)), the author of Mark was transvaluing Homeric themes. So this is a literary theme that would be recognized and appreciated by Mark's readers as indicating that Jesus was superior to the old gods.

spamandham

Credible? Maybe. But simpler? What is implausible with the hypothesis, or why is it not validly established by the facts?

spamandham

Jesus isn't the one calling down fire. It's James and John offering that service.

Elijah

I did try to address that with this.
You can't show him having the power without killing so you have to show him stopping those beneath him with the power to say he was controlling his own ability, not that he lacked it.