spamandham

You'll note that no argument was made, no claim of scholarship was made, and in fact I stressed that I'm making no claims of a causal relationship either. It's nothing more than a list of things which I find similar, yet sufficiently expressed doubt on my own part.

Did you fail to notice all the question marks, or are you simply reacting as expected for an apologist?

GakuseiDon

Yes, spamandham was doing what I asked in the OP: present parallels irrespective of whether they indicate influence or not (though I was really hoping that all parallels could be validated via listed primary sources). It may be that we find in the end that some apparently unconnected parallels actually point to a pattern that could be meaningful. The purpose though was to first sift out information that can't be validated from primary sources.

Solitary Man

Forget influence, I still don't see parallels in many of those without seriously straining.

spamandham

...does that imply that you do see similarities in some?

Solitary Man

Sure, just like I see that humans in both China and Europe have bowls. They're similar in that respect. Pretty neat, huh?

Cesc

That John 3:1-15 passage is great! It explains the essence of the mystery initiation: the individual "rebirth", "resurrection" or "illumination", transferred here to a Judeo-Christian gnostic scheme of things.

I think thats a good point with Jesus as the individual inner light manifested from the darkness of a cave. Spiritual and intellectual light which, as you point out, has always all around the world in general been sought for in caves, and in this cave-nativity scene is identified with the "Christian light" (Jesus/Logos).


Allow me to suggest something on that account. Is it possible that in the view of the ancient thinkers of the Fertile Crescent, 'darkness' might have been seen as a natural part of the very first phase of "creation" (Gen 1:2)?

In the darkness of the womb the “seed” springs to life, both in the darkness of the human, animal and mother earth’s womb. And the same for the moon, who for a couple of days every month is fully overshadowed when passing by the sun, before the new light is regenerated, the conceived heavenly child of light shining in the great womb. So I suggest this is possibly why the author of Luke has Mary to be “overshadowed” when impregnated by the Spirit (Luke 1:35). Perhaps through the OT, the Ark of Covenant.

Consider the fact that the holy ‘ark’, being the womb principle, was also having to be overshadowed. The author of Hebrews 9, when briefly describing the ark of covenant, mentions (9:5) the fact that the two cherubims “overshadow” the ark (Ex 25:20, 1Ki 8:7). Which seems to be their function and purpose, to “cover” or “overshadow” the ark. Presumably so that the “glory of the Lord” may come in his "cloud” and “dwell” in the tent, tabernacle or temple as a habitat.

Is there some kind of "darkening of the world" in the Noahs Ark story?
Cuz that would add a bit of much needed weight to this suggestion! :Cheeky:

patcleaver

What are you using as a primary source for the beliefs of Christians?


Primary historical sources of information for the purpose of establishing an historical facts are:
1. artifacts generated by people participating in or otherwise witnessing the historical fact, at the time of the fact, that are evidence of the fact;
2. artifacts that are recordings of information, generated by participants and other witnesses of the fact, made immediately after the fact, that are evidence of the fact.

Only the actual original artifact is a primary source - not the information that the artifact contains. A copy of a primary source is not a primary source, but if the copier can be proved to be reliable, it may be reliable evidence of the primary source. A translation of a primary source is not a primary source. Histories are almost never primary sources of anything.

The primary source has to be created contemporaneous with the fact that the primary source is being used to establish. Documents that are forgeries, fictions, fakes, or otherwise unauthentic or unreliable for some purpose are not primary sources for that purpose. The proponent claiming that an artifact is a primary source for supporting some fact, must establish the authenticity and reliability of the artifact for supporting that fact. If there is reasonable suspicion that an artifact is a forgery, fiction, fake or otherwise unreliable regarding the purpose of its use, then it can not be used as a primary source.

For example, a primary source for the existence of Jesus would be the original diary that was proved to have been kept by one of the 12 apostles, or a letter describing the ministry of Jesus that was proved to have been written by one of the apostles immediately after Jesus' death, or DNA from Jesus' burial wrappings that matched Mary's DNA (if they can find her body assuming the Catholics are wrong about her bodily assumption into heaven), a primary source for the existence of Paul would be the original of one of his Epistles that was proved to be written in the handwriting of Paul.

Of course there is no primary source for the existence of Jesus or Mary or Joseph or any of the 12 apostles or Paul. There are no primary sources for the activities or saying of Jesus, the 12 apostles, or Paul.

There are no primary sources for the existence of Christians before early churches were built during the time of Constantine, because there is reasonable suspicion that all the alleged artifacts of Christianity before the time of Constantine are not reliable. For example, the shrine at Dura Europas, built before 272 CE, was probably a pagan shrine because pagans baptized and used good Shepard themes, and we know there were pagans at that time, so it can not be used as a primary source that Christians existed. The copy of the gospel of Judas carbon dated to 280 CE (+- 60 years) is a primary source that the gospel of Judas existed around 280 CE, but it is not a primary source that any Christians existed in 280 because its existence does not require that there were any Christians at that time (it may have been circulated as an entertaining fictional work). There is reasonable suspicion that other fragments of the NT that are claimed to be dated before the time of Constantine, based on handwriting analysis, are not reliably dated to before the time of Constantine, so they are not primary sources for their own existence before the time of Constantine.

The earliest carbon-dated primary source, that I know of, for the existance of the New Testament is the Codex Khabouris dated from 1040 to 1090 CE.

Roger Pearse

This post is intellectually illiterate, and these statements have been rebutted elsewhere in this forum. This is NOT how the term 'primary source' is used.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Solo

You mean the as a preameval contrast to creation ? I guess that would be a given. The darkness/light duality is a universal feature in world mythology and usually is a feature of the creation myth or a basic nature of things. In the Chinese "cosmic egg" story, the divine ancestor Pan Gu exploded out of a shell of an egg, the light part of it forming the heavens and the yolk, the earth. Once he separates the sky and earth, he dies a heroic death of sheer exhaustion. All myths agree (strange - isn't it ?) the dark, earthly, chtonic part is the woman principle (Gaia, Papa, Izanami, Yin) and the light, sky-dwelling, ethereal part (Uranus, Rangi, Izanagi, Yang) the male principle.

Luke's "overshadowing" agrees with the standard Hebraic symbolization of the presence of God - shekinhah, which clearly overlaps with the Christian (Holy) Spirit. (see e.g. Commentary on the NT Use of OT. G.K. Beale & D.A. Carson, which links the verb (episkiazo) with Moses' being unable to enter the tabernacle while the glory of Lord was filling it, Ex 40:35). One thing to remember about Luke's annunciation though: it does not have a shining baby coming out of a womb, but an angel in shining glory appearing to the shepherds in the field at night (watching over their flock 24-7: who might they be ?). Also, Luke appears to have ignored the cave (or might not have been aware of the tradition) and had Mary place Jesus in a manger of the inn's stable. So, I would be careful about going too far with that parallel.

Well, it's very suggestive - I'll grant you that.


Jiri

Malachi151

Exactly. A copy of an original is still a primary source.