Horatio Parker

So, if I understand you, you're arguing that first century Christians could not have believed in the sublunar realm, presumably including Paul, because they were Christian?

Jayrok

The Ezekiel reference was only to show how silly your argument is. I never said you were arguing anything about Ezekiel. The fact that the post didn't make sense to you is perhaps an indication that english is not your native language (?) I don't know.

Well, in your first post, you said "which suggest that the Pauline letters are late."

Now you are only saying that it "does not corroborate." Well yeah, I agree with the latter. Of course it doesn't corroborate the Pauline letters.

But it also does not "suggest" necessarily that they are late. That's all I'm saying.

Pliny the Younger is not a witness against Paul's Jesus. He doesn't mention him. So what? His lack of reference to Jesus or Paul has nothing to do with the dating of Pauline literature even though you try to list it as evidence that supports your position.

ApostateAbe

Not at all. In part I am saying that the argument from plausibility fails, because there is not sufficient evidence to suggest that a significant portion of either the ancient society or the mystery cults believed in a "sublunar realm."

EarlDoherty

I would not style Julian's text as "the primary piece of evidence" but it is certainly one element of it. Now, I am not going to claim that I can properly interpret all the meaning inherent in Julian's writing here. (He himself says “However, this is perhaps somewhat subtle.”) It's hard to make sense of something which bears no relation to reality, and I'm not going to take the trouble to read the entire Orations V again (I’m not sure I remember what his "third creator" is, though it may be Helios, the sun god). But it's possible to relate what he says to elements of Middle and Neo- Platonic philosophy, including Pauline christology.

The "immaterial cause" needs to be identified with a High God (such as Paul's "Father") who has produced/created the Platonic forms. But like Paul's "Son" and the entire Platonic concept over the centuries of the "intermediary Son and Logos", Attis becomes a subordinate deity responsible for generating and sustaining the powers/products in matter which proceed from those higher forms. He is a “cause” of such things. In this way, he is not basically different from the Christ/Son of hymns like Colossians 1:15-20, or of Hebrews 1:2-3, etc. who in channelling the Father ‘causes’ creation and its sustaining.

Your suggestion that “embodied in matter beneath the region of the moon” represents the earth is not borne out by a number of considerations. First, if it was simply non-material heaven vs. the material earth, with the moon being the dividing line, why not simply refer to the location as ‘the earth’? Rather, Julian’s text implies a gradation.

Here Julian is presenting the traditional myth, located originally in primordial sacred time. But he goes on to interpret it in heavenly terms.

So this part of the myth, this phase of Attis’ activities, is set in the heavens, for no matter where you locate the Milky Way, it is not on earth. And I agree that the Milky Way must be above the moon. Which is fine, since this part of the Attis myth can take place in a higher heaven in an incorruptibility context.

This region is on the dividing line between incorruptibility (“passionless sphere”) and corruptibility (“subject to change”). Attis was at first kept above that boundary.

This is somewhat obscure. Attis is “wedding” the nymph representing the “dampness of matter”, but still Julian is distinguishing between full matter itself and some kind of fringe area that is “immaterial,” though apparently receiving some kind of impact from matter. So he looks still not to be inserting Attis into matter itself. Regardless of how one defines the ‘substances’ involved, thus far Julian has not placed his reinterpreted myth on earth itself.

So Julian sees Attis as a force which acts as a go-between from the immaterial to the material, between cause and product, and the edge of the latter is set at the moon. If we had a rigid two-state distinction (such as GDon has often argued), heaven and earth, I suggest that the latter would be specified. And this would be to ignore Julian’s (and the type of Platonism we find in earlier documents such as the Ascension of Isaiah) context of gradations both within the heavenly sphere and the beneath-the-moon material sphere (which GDon has steadfastly tried to deny). So I see nothing specifically of earth here.

Actually, if one reads further into the succeeding text (sec.167), one finds that Julian interprets the castration of Attis, his dying and then rising back to the Mother of the Gods (a force which ‘oversees’ the creative process performed by Attis), as a “checking” of indiscriminate creation of products of the higher forms, a process taking place immediately upon reaching the boundary of changeability. Again, no specificity about earth. And 168A-B says this:

None of this sounds like Julian is placing him on earth, irrespective of whether the myth is interpreted as allegorical or not. Julian may not be presenting this in the context of directly interpreting the Attis myth, including his death and resurrection, as laid out in the secret mystery rites, but it is yet another example of the focus in analysing a cultic myth involving a relocation to the heavens, something which Plutarch also demonstrates, paralleled in certain elements of the Pauline letters and the epistle to the Hebrews. It also indicates, as does Plutarch, that the ancients did indeed have the concept of a “sublunar realm” which was not simply earth itself.

When so many start looking, walking, and sounding like a duck, the odds are they are all talking about a duck.

Earl Doherty

aa5874

Well, if you think I don't understand English why are you responding to me in English?? Please, argue in another language.

Now, your Ezekiel reference is called a "STRAWMAN" in English.

So, now you agree with me. The Pliny/Trajan letters do NOT corroborate the Pauline letters.

Well, I am arguing that it suggests the Pauline letters are Late. That is what I am showing. Based on the claims in the Pauline letters I would expect Pliny to have known of the Jesus cult of Christians WITHOUT having to torture people.

My argument is that Pliny lived in Rome and was a Lawyer and based on the Pauline letters the Jesus cult should have been Established since the days of King Aretas c 37-41 or at least for 70 years in the Roman Empire.

However, Pliny seem completely unaware of people called Christians and completely unaware of what they believed.

There should have been Four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline writings, the Non-Pauline writings, Hebrews, and Revelation plus many more non-Canonised writings of Jesus and about Christians.

Pliny the younger TORTURED people to find out what Christians Believed c 115 CE and his supposed Christians AFTER TORTURE did NOT mention Jesus.

Pliny the younger is a witness AGAINST an early Jesus cult of Christians and the Pauline letters up to c 115 CE.

Jayrok

I see what you're saying. But how can we know the people he tortured (from his letter, 2 women) didn't mention Jesus and/or his sacrifice? Is there a transcript of the torture session?

All he told Trajan was that he found (whatever the deaconesses said) it to be superstition. The silence on Jesus' sacrifice or Paul's letters doesn't necessarily mean the women didn't mention those things. It just means he didn't find it necessary to report it to Trajan.

It's an interesting point about the span of time between the origin of the cult and the date of the letter to Trajan. I agree it seems peculiar for him to have not heard of Paul's exploits in and around Rome. On the other hand, Paul's letters weren't mailed through the Roman postal system. He sent them through messengers such as Titus, presumably, straight to church leaders. It's possible that fringe believers' only knowledge of such letters came from the hearsay of other Christians.

In other words, it's possible that the women didn't actually know much about Paul, at least from personal experience... and Pliny wasn't satisfied with their lack of answers.

Of course, you could be correct... but I don't see how Pliny is a witness against early Christians or Pauline letters up to 115 CE. We only know what he told Trajan in the letter. Claiming to know exactly what was confessed to him is pure speculation. Unless, of course, there are other letters to Trajan, or anyone else, that render more concrete evidence that the Jesus cult didn't exist before the second century.

aa5874

How can it be claimed he tortured 2 women?? Why is it not claimed he raped the two women??It is because that is written in the letter.

We can make inferences on the statements made--not those imaginged.

As soon as we get transcripts from "the torture session" then we can review our inferences.

As it is right now, Pliny was NOT aware of the Jesus story, the Pauline writings and the beliefs of the Christians.


Have found you "transcripts from the torture session" ?? You are doing exactly what you are accusing me of. You have actually invented your own story.

I am dealing with the written statements in the Pliny/Trajan letter. Pliny Tortured the two deaconesses to find out the precise nature of their belief.

They did NOT mention Jesus.

And even BEFORE the Pauline letters, Paul supposedly PERSECUTED followers of the Jesus cult. So even if Paul did NOT write any letters there should have been Believers since 37-41 CE and they were known in the Roman Empire.

Have you found "transcripts of the torture session"?

Is it not claimed the Pauline letters were read in the Churches so what Church did the Tortured Christians attend??

Who was the Bishop of the Church for the Tortured Christians??

Pliny's Tortured Christians did NOT mention Jesus, the Pauline letters or the Bishops of their Churches.

You are the one Speculating about what was confessed. The Pliny letter made statements about their effective confession and did not name Jesus, Paul and the Pauline letters.

The Pliny/Trajan letters show or suggest that Pliny was not aware of a Jesus cult of Christians and the Beliefs of the Christians up to 115 CE.

Horatio Parker

The best sources in Greek, which is the context of Paul, placed the realm of spirits and daemons, angels and so on in the sublunar realm.

If the sublunar realm fails plausibility, then so does any idea not literally expressed in the text.

Jayrok

So you are saying that we can only know what was written in the letter. Anything else is speculation. I agree. So it follows that your claim that Pliny was not aware of the Jesus story or the Pauline writings, is speculation on your part.

If we can only make inferences on the statements made, then all we really know is that Pliny discovered that (in his view) they were addicted to an extravagant superstition. We have no details of what he was told by the women. Although, you are free to speculate all you like.

How can you possibly know what they mentioned? You said above that you only deal with the "written statements in the Pliny/Trajan letter."

So all you can deal with is that Pliny found it all to be superstition. That's it. You can speculate as to what the women told Pliny. And you are speculating that they didn't say anything about Jesus or Paul's letters.


Agreed.

Colossians 4:16. They were at least read in one church in Laodicea.

How do you know what they mentioned? There is no confession of the women in his letter. Only that Pliny found for himself that whatever they said was nothing more than superstition.

Do they suggest or do they prove?

aa5874

So, tell us where in the letter does it state that Pliny was aware of the Jesus story and the Pauline letters??

It is clear to me that you do not understand what 'evidence' is.

Once the Pliny letter does not mention Jesus and the Pauline writings then I can ARGUE that Pliny was NOT aware of the Jesus story and the Pauline letters.

The actual contents of the Pliny letter SUPPORTS my argument.

People who claim Pliny was aware of the Jesus story and the Pauline writings are SPECULATING.

The actual contents of the Pliny letter does NOT support the claim that Pliny was aware of the Jesus and the Pauline letters.

You seem not to understand what is meant by 'inference' and 'speculation'.

First of all 'speculation' does NOT require any evidence. In effect, you don't need the Pliny/Trajan letters when you speculate.

On the other hand, DATA must be used to make 'INFERENCES'.

We have the Pliny/Trajan letters, Recovered DATED manuscripts, the Pauline writings, the Four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, Revelation, the writings of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexander, Origen, Ignatius, Aristides, Josephus, Philo, Suetonius, Tacitus, Eusebius and others who also made statements about the 1st century and/or Jesus and Paul.

Based on the abundance of DATA that we have I INFER that Pliny the younger was NOT aware of the Jesus story and the Pauline letters.

So, just show me where they mentioned Jesus in the letter.

Again, it is a FACT that in the Pliny letter they did NOT mention Jesus and the Pauline letters. I cannot speculate that they did.


Claims made by the Pauline writer may be utterly false. The Pauline writings are sources of Fiction.

Don't you understand that we must employ other sources of evidence from antiquity??? Surely it is unheard of where one source is used as evidence.

We have an abundance of evidence from antiquity that suggest the Pauline writer was as a Liar.

Again, just show me where in the letter they mentioned Jesus, the Pauline letters, or the Bishops of their Churches.

Don't you understand English?? Please, read my statement.