Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 04-10-2008, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnosis92

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

We have no documents from the mystery cults - they were mystery cults, and their secrets died with them. We only know a little about them from classical writers of the time.

Doherty makes his case in his book, the Jesus Puzzle. If you have a serious question, you can read the book, or his website, and email him with questions.

The serious question I have is whether there is any evidential basis to think that Paul and his immediate audience would have read his letters in the manner of a mystery religion rather than in terms of a historical gospel Jesus. Part of evaluating this is assessing whether Doherty gives an evidential account of what mystery religions actually teach, or whether his account is some kind of armchair concoction of what he would like to believe Paul says (but no one in the first century would have actually understood).

Why are you asking us instead of reading Doherty's work or asking Doherty? Doherty does not base his case on a comparison with the mystery cults.

Freke and Gandy in the Jesus Mysteries (or via: amazon.co.uk) attempt to reconstruct the content of the mystery religions. I have a feeling that you are confusing them.

Roger Pearse · 04-11-2008, 12:11 AM

No, there is not. One might likewise ask whether this position is held by anyone in antiquity at all; and it is not.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

dog-on · 04-11-2008, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnosis92

Are there any documented first century mystery-cultist who (would have) read Paul as Doherty does?

Isn't the first question: "Are there any documented first century mystery-cultist[s] who read Paul"?

spin

...or was there any "Paul" to actually read in the first century...

Clivedurdle · 04-11-2008, 02:53 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic..._New_Testament

The gospels themselves?

Quote:

According to Mark (and the other Synoptics), when Jesus was presented before Pilate, Pilate offered to the crowd a choice between Jesus and a man named Barabbas. The full name of Barabbas was, according to some ancient Christian texts, including some ancient manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus Barabbas; Barabbas is the Greek form of the Hebrew surname bar Abbas, which means son of the father . Hence, Pilate offered the choice between Jesus and Jesus son of the father and Mark (and in consequence Matthew, Luke, and John) effectively presents the choice between an earthly Jesus-son-of-the-father (as Barabbas was a thief and bandit) and a more spiritual version of Jesus-son-of-the-father, a highly gnostic reading. The crowd chose to save the earthly Jesus (i.e. Barabbas), which thus may be read as allegory in the gnostic view that the masses were carnal and not spiritual beings, since they did not have gnosis.

spin · 04-11-2008, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Isn't the first question: "Are there any documented first century mystery-cultist[s] who read Paul"?

...or was there any "Paul" to actually read in the first century...

That would simply guarantee only one answer to my question, wouldn't it?

spin

dog-on · 04-11-2008, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

...or was there any "Paul" to actually read in the first century...

That would simply guarantee only one answer to my question, wouldn't it?

spin

indeed :notworthy:

gnosis92 · 04-11-2008, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

No, there is not. One might likewise ask whether this position is held by anyone in antiquity at all; and it is not.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

That's what I suspect -- I don't deny that in a highly abstract way Doherty's position could quite possibly be true, but in assessing the historicity of his claims, I wonder if his position was held by anyone in antiquity at all.

badger3k · 04-11-2008, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

No, there is not. One might likewise ask whether this position is held by anyone in antiquity at all; and it is not.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

It's kind of had to hold a position when you're a few thousand years dead.

Or are you trying to say that people who study the ancient cultures would not support that contention?

Roger Pearse · 04-12-2008, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by badger3k

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

No, there is not. One might likewise ask whether this position is held by anyone in antiquity at all; and it is not.

It's kind of had to hold a position when you're a few thousand years dead.

That sounds like you're trying to be funny. Did you not understand what I wrote?

Quote:

Or are you trying to say that people who study the ancient cultures would not support that contention?

No doubt this is so, although I claim no expertise in knowing what scholars do and don't believe -- ask Jeffrey Gibson.

But I'd rather go straight to the ancient sources. No ancient source records a group of people who believed this. Indeed the temper of the times ran in a different direction.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-11-2008, 12:11 AM	#12
Roger Pearse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 4,370	No, there is not. One might likewise ask whether this position is held by anyone in antiquity at all; and it is not. All the best, Roger Pearse

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.