fatpie42

Dude, when you claim that Jesus had nothing to do with Paul's understanding of Jesus I think it's time you found a justification for your views pronto. If that wasn't what you were saying you need to make yourself a damn sight clearer. I no longer have any idea what your argument is supposed to be.

What is it about your distinction between pagan and Christian salvation? 'Salvation' is a Christian concept, so I'm not even sure what I would mean to talk about 'pagan salvation'. I certainly haven't ever mentioned 'pagan salvation' so using it to discredit me must be a straw man.

Which part of the following didn't clarify the issue enough for you:
i.e. just because stories have been told about Dionysos doesn't mean he existed. If you don't think this applies to Jesus feel free to give me a good reason. I am open to new ideas, but you have to justify them.

What evidence of Dionysos do you want?

Here's an account of Dionysos from several different sources:
http://www.theoi.com/Olympios/Dionys...tml#Tyrrhenian

And here's a historian's account of Bacchanalia in Rome and Italy (i.e. rituals devoted to Dionysos/Bacchus) with references to sources:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/Livy/Livy39.html

My argument is pretty simple. It hasn't changed. It is this:
You have no more reason to state that Jesus was historical than you have to state that Dionysos was historical.

If you wish to dismiss this you need to argue for Jesus' historicity, not go into tangents about 'salvation'.

You can't understand the theology too well if you don't know the relevance of the Christian belief in the resurrection to the Christian understanding of salvation.

Of course I don't think Jesus was a pagan god. He's a Christian god evolved out of Jewish tradition, so the label 'pagan' would be totally inappropriate; just like the labels 'Zoroastrian' or 'Buddhist' would be inappropriate.

That said, I don't see any more reason to see truth in the Jesus myth than in pagan myths.

This is all becoming a bit pedantic isn't it. A soldier would suggest they were part of an invading army, but they were actually rebelling against Roman occuptation. Naturally the uprising was savagely repressed. Wouldn't a better term be 'freedom fighter'? In any case, if he was killing Romans, the Romans would see him as a murderer and that would be why they were imprisoning him. The idea that they would simply let him out is just too bizarre to be true.

There is no evidence that they didn't ride on purple dinosaurs at that time either. Nevertheless, I think the complete lack of evidence probably counts against it.

Perhaps this is your issue with the debate on the historicity of Jesus too?

An edit would be a later addition wouldn't it?

Well naturally if Jesus never existed then no Jewish historian could have written about him. It stands to reason.

No Robots

So if the figure of Jesus originates in Jewish tradition, what correspondence do you see between Jesus and other figures in Jewish tradition?

aa5874

Are you claiming that you have not seen the passages in Galatians 1 where the writer called Paul persecuted the faith he once preached.

Galatians 1.23


I do not know what the writer called Paul believed. I do not really know if Paul believed what he wrote. I can only show you what is written in the letters as found in the NT.

Galatians 1.23 In Acts, Saul/Paul was also presented as a persecutor of Jesus believers.

Amaleq13

You admit words aren't your strength yet feel confident you have not misused the word? That is called arrogant ignorance.

You are simply wrong to claim there is any substantive difference between the sacrificial nature of their actions. The actual difference you see seems to have more to do with the response after the sacrifice but it is starting to look a bit ad hoc as well.

It has tremendous impact on anyone who recognizes the sacrifice the individual made for them.

I know many kids who signed up because they were inspired by others who served before them.

The only difference appears to be in your beliefs about them.

Elijah

I’m totally confused. You think I’m saying Jesus had nothing to do with Paul’s understanding of what was going on? I’m for a historical figure so obviously he had something to do with his understanding.
I don’t understand Pagan salvation and I don’t know if it is comparable to Christian salvation. If you are going to try to compare a Jewish savior to pagan saviors/gods like below then you need to justify that they should be understood similarly.
I want your understanding of salvation from a pagan god that doesn’t require a historical figure and where it comes from so we have something to compare to the Christian salvation. That or stop with these examples.
Because we are talking about salvation. That aspects of the universe can be reified and anthropomorphized and told in stories without a historical figure isn’t a big deal and doesn’t need to be pointed out. That salvation can be achieved by believing in the mythical death of one of them is what needs to be illustrated. Comparing a Jewish savior with pagan gods doesn’t make much sense unless you make the case.
I don’t claim to understand the theology too well. I was asking if you understood the salvation in order to make the claim that a historical figure wasn’t required.
Is there any difference in your understanding of a pagan god and your understanding of the Jewish/Christian God? Or is it all anthropomorphic genie type gods in your view?
Well that would be the fundamental problem I see with your understanding of Jesus then. If you are trying to understand Jesus as a pagan god and not as a Jewish messiah I think you are going to have a hard time coming up with anything close to what is going on.
I prefer soldier to freedom fighter, but you can call him whatever you want. The idea may be too bizarre to be true but you don’t have any evidence that it didn’t happen that way. Not that I care that if it did because to me it could have just been added in later but I guess it’s a central part of your argument.
Nice comparison. Our knowledge of when dinosaurs went extinct to what we know about Roman/Jewish traditions 2000 years ago.
Nope it could just be clarifying and rewording. Your later addition theory is just a theory.
Do you really not see the error in your argument yet? You have no examples to back up the silence argument. Give it up and move on.

Elijah

I have a hard time believing you can't see the difference in the impact of what Jesus supposedly did and what a soldier does every day but I guess I will just have to take your words on it.

Amaleq13

You need to reread your own words here and recognize that, as I have suggested, you are not differentiating between the nature of the sacrifices but the subsequent responses.

Elijah

The differences in the sacrifice would be seen in the impact/imitation of it afterward. There is no difference in the nature between the sacrifices themselves because they are both acts/actions of individuals.

If you have better wording, go for it.

spin

So? You need to elucidate your original comments.

Strawman.

By being swayed by the outsiders, they are diminishing Paul's idea of the messiah and are therefore in Paul's eyes, foolish. Where else - based on what Paul says??

The crucifixion is the means of their redemption from the law, not torah praxis.

Strength of character. Brow-beating. The logic of his letter.

This is a tangent. What developed after Paul is not related to the current discussion.

If this is not another tangent, could you explain the relevance?

When asked "Which came first though, Paul's savior/messiah or the historical (or historicized) preacher?" you responded, "The preacher, evidently." Your response here is supposed to be supplying evidence for your opinion that the preacher came first, yet it does not. Do you have evidence that the preacher came first, despite the fact that Paul states no need for such a reality?

Your response is a simple non sequitur. You have presented no plausible scenario to explain the need for a prior real Jesus in response to Paul's saying that no human taught him his gospel and that Jesus was revealed to him by god. You are not responding to what has been said to you, which was about Paul's knowledge.

For a secular understanding, one need posit only that Paul had been thinking about the issues for quite some time in the context of a pagan world of mysteries and saviors -- just as Philo's writings were the products of his living in a world which favored Platonic ideas. The revelation was some form of crystalization of his thoughts.


spin

aa5874

It is not the crucifixion that the writer gives the ultimate significance for redemption, it is the resurrection.

Matthew 2.5-7 It is interesting to note that in the NT, Jesus had the power to forgive sins, and was exercising this power to forgive sins, even before he was crucified.

Many may have been crucified but a son of a God can resurrect. The resurrection is the proof of his divinty. And only Gods can forgive sin.

1Cor 15:17 -
Redemption is directly tied to the resurrection according to the writer called Paul.