Put an end to all religion. Begin a relationship with Jesus Christ. You need to repent. Moreover, you should ask God for eternal forgiveness through applying the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ to your life of sin within the quietness of your bedroom tonight. As an unrepentant sinner myself, I made this decision around 15 years ago. This is the most important decision that you could ever make. - Romans 10:9-10
You could repent. Moreover, you could ask God for eternal forgiveness through applying the death and resurrection of Jesus to your life of sin within the quietness of your bedroom tonight. As an unrepentant sinner myself, I made this decision around 15 years ago. This is the most important decision that you could ever make. - Romans 10:9-10
All of these parallels are fascinating but they aren't evidence for plagiarism by Xianity. I've been studying this my whole life & I think it was a genuine cult, possibly/probably formed around a real person, not a wholesale fabrication, wherever its early converts borrowed their embellishing myths from. But it remains a mystery, for the most part.
@agnostaxian Actually they were both..that's how we get Christianity. It comes from Jews of the Diaspora living in a Greek world under Roman rule and likely from Alexandria.
It is a synthesis of pagan (Greek, Roman, Egyptian) religion and Jewish midrash during Pax Romana and the blending of many cultures. Christianity is a pagan religion.
All the pagan myths blended and borrowed, assimilated and fused with each other.
@ninjamojo711 what you are saying is like saying Osama gets his spiritual guidance from Oprah. It is very historically unlikely. As Schweitzer says, why go to the far away pond of paganism with a leaky bucket when the stream of Judaism is right at your feet?
Early Jewish Christianity is best explained by Jewish antecedents not pagan.
What New Testament teaching is better explained as pagan in origin rather than Jewish?
Jews abhorred pagan myths, especially a pharisees like Paul
@agnostaxian Paul changed from being a Pharisee to a proponent of the Christ crucified myth motif. He shed the Jewish rules to open up for the gentile (pagan).
The synthesis of Jewish midrash and Greek/Roman/Egyptian myth his highly likely. It would be unlikely if it didn't happen. There were more Jews living in Alexandria in and around the 1st century than any where else.
Historians even write that the worshippers of Seripas (culturally synthesized god) were the same worshippers of Christ.
'Egypt, which you commended to me, my dearest Servianus, I have found to be wholly fickle and inconsistent, and continually wafted about by every breath of fame. The worshipers of Serapis (here) are called Christians, and those who are devoted to the god Serapis (I find), call themselves Bishops of Christ.'
–Hadrian to Servianus, 134A.D. (Quoted by Giles, ii p86)
@ninjamojo711 Is hadrian a scholar on early Christianity? again name 5 modern historians that think early Christianity (talkin about 1st century New Testament Christianity not 2nd century gnostics) is based on pagan myths. also, have you studied early Christianity? I am talking about what the early Christians themselves said not pagans about them.
@agnostaxian Hadrian was Emperor at the time and was giving his observation to his brother. I'd call that first hand knowledge.
This would have been written before 134AD, around the time the earliest gospels show up.
If you want references from the early church, of course they are not going to admit assimilation, but early church fathers admit similarities from pre-existing Pagan god myths to Jesus.
@ninjamojo711 Yes, I know who Hadrian was but you need something earlier that 134 ad written by a Roman emperor.
Hmmm, You say the gospels were written around 134? interesting. OK we will side step that for now, let me ask you 3 basic question on the New Testament itself. what NT writing do most scholars think was written first, what was the date and why do scholars assign it to that date?
If you have truly studied what historians have to say about early Christianity, this is a softball.
@ninjamojo711 but if Paul, Mark, Luke and the rest are dated such, how can what hadrian said in 134 have anything to with early Christianity? Let's say Christian bishops were worshiping seripas in Alexandria like Hadrian says (which I highly doubt), what does that have to do with 1st century New Testament Christianity?
@agnostaxian The earliest mention of the gospels in Christian record is around 120AD. Hadrian's comments of the same era point to the fact that early christianity was fused, synthesized, assimilated with other pagan religions. The fact that pagan synthesis occurred early as well as later (Constantine follower of Mithra) shows again that Christianity is not original but just another Pagan religion and the official version is the result of Pax Romana. (Universal=Catholic)
@ninjamojo711 Ignatius is quoting from John in 110 AD. Read his material. We have found a fragment of the gospel of John that dates in the 120's. This means that gospel was in circulation at that time. Most scholars date it in the 90's.
Clement of Rome quotes from Matthew, Luke, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthains, Titus and Hebrews in the 90's under the Domitian persecution
@agnostaxian Also, Eusebius the early church historian thinks the early Christians come out of Alexandria. He comes to this realization when he refers to the works of Philo of Alexandria (15BC- 50AD) and his references to the Theraputea.
@ninjamojo711 what early christians came out of alexandria before Paul, Peter, and James from 30-70's? The thing you quoted from Hadrian is 130's. Clearly later. What eusebian quotes leads you to think he thought that?
@agnostaxian ...and Apollo as mentioned by Paul as well as in Acts, who preaches Jesus "correctly" but is baptized by John instead of Paul comes from....where?.......can you guess?........wait for it......
@ninjamojo711 Apollo is after Peter, James, John and Paul, all Jews But even if Apollo is from alexandria, the text only states that he knew the baptism of John, not that he taught pagan mystery religions that Most Jews abhorred
@ninjamojo711 if you look at Paul's 1st letter to the Corinthians chapter 15, he quotes a tradition there that he received from those who were apostles before him (almost certainly Peter, John and James who he visited in the mid 30's that he talks about in Galatians 1& 2). He did not make it up. It is in a traditional rabbinic form to pass on. He talks about the death and resurrection "according to the scriptures".
The early Jewish disciples went to the OT to understand Jesus and his death
@agnostaxian What Paul "received" is according to scriptures. The "scriptures" in this case is the Hebrew OT. It's not the gospels of Matt, Mark, Luke or John, they hadn't been written yet nor would they have been considered "scripture".
Paul doesn't say Peter, James or John told him anything. The gospel that Paul receives is the gospel of God through spirit and revealed in (OT) scripture, not a story about the earthly Jesus, of which the canonical gospels portray.
@ninjamojo711 Bro, that was my point, the antecedent of the central story of Jesus- death and resurrection- are from the Old Testament not paganism.
What happened after Jesus died. Peter, James, John, Mary and the rest they started experiencing Jesus in visions as alive that they explain as a "resurrection". They went to the Hebrew Scriptures (Not pagan sources) to understand these happenings and proclaimed his death for sins and resurrection to other Jews. Paul took the same message to pagans
@agnostaxian Paul equates his apostleship to the others because of his vision and their vision.
Paul never mentions Mary, Virgin birth, healings, miracle stories, Sermon on the Mount are anything from the gospel narraitive...only Christ crucified, which is on a mystical realm. No mention of Golgatha, Jesus trial, empty tomb, walking zombies in Jerusalem.
@ninjamojo711 Paul mentions more than that- He mentions Jesus as son of David (Rom 1), He quotes the last supper tradition (1 Corinthians 11), He talks about the Lord's Brother and that the Lord taught being paid through the gospel was good (1 Cor. 9), Rom 12 is a summary of the "love your enemy" from Jesus traidition, Rom 13 is "render to Caesar" teaching, 1 Cor. 7 Paul mentions Jesus teaching on marriage, and of course that Jesus was crucified (1 Cor. 1).
@agnostaxian He comes from David because scripturally that's how the Messiah is supposed come.
It's not necessarily literal. Hercules comes from Zeus. Horus from Osiris. They are still myth. However the mythicist case doesn't have to maintain no earthly prototype at all.
Only Jesus of Nazareth as described in the gospels never existed.
The prototype for the character could have been John the Baptist or the Teacher of Righteousness from the Essenes (which are connected to the Therapeutae).
@ninjamojo711 I am not arguing for Davidic sonship here, I am just saying early Christianity found in the New Testament is Jewish paradigm not pagan that is why they thought Jesus being a davidic descend was significant. If they were pagan in orientation then yes, they should have Jesus born of Zeus like hercules not of David
@ninjamojo711 maybe you can argue that the Gospel of John is both but the rest in the New Testament is certainly Jewish in DNA. I would say that Christianity is rooted in Christianity with branches that can be enjoyed by greek pagan philosophical minds.
This was the view of the 2nd and 3rd century Christian apologists
@ninjamojo711 When you read the New Testament, it fits so much better when read through a Jewish apocalyptic paradigm than a pagan one. The early Jewish Christians used Jewish categories to explain their movement. Jesus as God's revealed Word, His death for sins as the Lamb of God, His resurrection to usher in the New Age, The coming of the Spirit promised by the prophets, The salvation of the gentiles promised in Isa 2. The went to the Old Testament to find their New Theology not the Iliad
@agnostaxian cont: The Greeks used allegory and myth to portray philosophy. This is how the gospels eventually come about.
Philo, a Hellenistic Jew is proof that at the beginning of the first century, Jews were using Jewish motifs in a Greek way. They weren't Pharisees, but were Jews open to a Greek world. The gospels are a result of Messiah midrash meshing with Greek Logos.
cont.
The gospels are written in Greek, not by illiterate Aramaic fishermen.
@agnostaxian cont: this is how the gospels were built. Paul refers to Christ as being revealed in scripture, the first gospel writers poured over the the Hebrew OT (Greek version of course) and formulated the gospel story from snippets of the OT. This is why some parts of the story seem ridiculous, but it's in order that the "prophecy" may come true.
@ninjamojo711 I disagree. The first proto-gospels came from what was remember by the Jerusalem followers of Jesus. People would ask questions about what Jesus said and did. They would remember as a community what he said (this is why it is not like the telephone game, a whole community was involved not one person to another). Now they did use OT motifs to put Jesus stories as they thought he fulfilled them but not from whole cloth. Many of the "prophecies" fulfilled seem shoehorned to fit Jesus
@ninjamojo711 I would say there are somethings very certain about Jesus- He was from nazareth, baptized by John, had a ministry of healings and exorcisms, proclaimed the coming kingdom of God to renew Israel, had 12 core disciples, caused a disturbance in the temple, was crucified and was seen by his disciples in visions after his death that they describe as a "resurrection". Most of the synoptics has a historical core but embellished. John is more mythological and developed. That is my view
@agnostaxian I don't entirely disagree with your view. However it seems to me if there is so much myth and "prophecy" used to build the story, as well as contradiction between gospels, date and time being a huge one, I don't see much of an historical person left standing.
Anyways, it was good exchanging with you. I appreciate your ability to keep it civilzed. Too often these kinds of debates end up in the gutter.
@ninjamojo711 ditto back to you. great exchange, made me think and dust off some old research stuff. kept me on my toes. enjoyed it. have a great New Year. :)
@ninjamojo711 It is much more likely that they had story about Jesus and went looking for fulfillments in the OT not the other way around. This is true not least with the virgin birth that Isa 7:14 seems to be saying nothing about the messiah being virgin born but they apply it to Jesus anyway. Why? very interesting
Although there were embellishments, I would say generallly the synoptics have historical data behind them, now John is another deal.
@agnostaxian Matthew claims that the flight of Jesus' family to Egypt is a fulfillment of Hosea 11:1. ("When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt."
Is this Jesus or Israel? What's melding together now is the Messiah/Logos (Jewish/Pagan)
As Paul preaches "Christ with in you" and Philo teaches the Logos is the "Son of God", Greek philosophy of the Logos is the God's divinity with in you. The original story of Jesus in the gospels is an allegory.
@ninjamojo711 That is what I am saying, If they were making up a story about Jesus why would Matthew quote from Hosea 11 that has nothing to do with the messiah. It seems more likely that they had the story first, then went to the scriptures to back it up as "fulfilled". Jews would look at the Hos 11 passage and say "That is not about the messiah". Christians had the stories first, then went to scriptures not vice versa
@agnostaxian There are other things that are head scratchers. "He shall be called a Nazarene." Matthew claims this was a fulfillment of prophecy, yet such a prophecy is not found anywhere in the Old Testament. It's likely a reference to a Nazarite in the OT.
This why they had Jesus born in Bethlehem (for another prophecy) and then travel back to Nazareth for the mistaken Nazarene prophecy.
@ninjamojo711 Yes, the "nazarene" scripture fulfillment is strange and I could see how you would say that Jesus born in bethlehem is created to fulfill a prophecy for that is more direct. although a minority of scholars think he may have been born there but historically unlikely in my view
@ninjamojo711 Paul was in touch with Peter (Jesus' #1 disciple) and James (Jesus' brother)- Galatians 1-2. Christianity may have some parallels with mystery religions but its DNA is Jewish.
God's Logos in creation and revelation- Gen 1- God sends his word to create and reveal himself to prophets.
Jesus dies for sins and remembered in communion- Exodus 12 and Isa 53- Jesus is passover Lamb
Jesus rises from the dead- Dan. 12 and the Jewish eschatological hope at end times
@ninjamojo711 The difference between Paul and some of the more conservative Jewish Christians was that Paul said they didn't have to follow the OT food laws or be circumcised. James and Peter agreed with this but James seems to not think Jew's should eat with pagan Christians while Paul did and Peter is a mediating figure between them as shown in Galatians 2. But over the death for sins and resurrection message, Peter, James, Paul and the rest agreed
@ninjamojo711 yes but 1 Corinthians 15 is what they all preached (15:11). also, how significant the differences were is speculative. Maybe it was just personality cult following. That seems to be what Paul is saying at the beginning but they did all agree on the death and resurrection of Jesus and his messianic status but anyway these are all Jews, no pagan teaching among them, no worship of Serapis was being taught by any of them. They would laugh at such a suggestion
@agnostaxian Drinking of the blood and eating of the body is pagan. The Logos, being Greek philosophy would be "pagan". Resurrection is pagan. The son of God from a mortal woman is pagan. There is more.
@ninjamojo711 No, Paul sites that tradition in 1 Corinthians 11 and it was a remembered meal that Jesus had with his disciples the night before he died to celebrate the passover. Jesus is seen as the passover Lamb that the Jew "ate" every year. The blood was to save them from the angel of death.
Read Phil. 2, in there is a Jewish Christian hymn about Jesus that parallels how Jews saw How the Word and Wisdom of God revealed God to man and was at God's right hand.
@ninjamojo711 OK, but the root is Jewish but obviously they were not literally eating his body and drinking his blood. It was a remembrance and a representation and operated on a symbolic level as Jesus was the passover Lamb. Moses sprinkled blood on the Israelites as a symbol of their cleansing.
This was also a development out of his table fellowship with sinners and outcast and it is very likely the 12 had an encounter with Christ in a vision at a table fellowship or after it. This is the DNA
@agnostaxian Interesting thing about Corinthians 15.
In verses 3-8 Paul makes no distinction between his vision of Christ and what the others before him saw.
According to Paul, he only saw a vision of Christ. He uses the Greek word "opthe", which means to see in a vision or dream, not actually physically seeing. We know from his conversion story, that this is what he meant.
He uses the same word "opthe" when he refers to what Cephas, James. the 12, the 500 saw.
@ninjamojo711 bro, none of these are scholars of early Christianity with the exception of Price and even he quotes Bultmann saying that the pagan mythicist view is "insane" in recognition of the extreme nature of his view among scholars.
There are about 8,000 scholars in the SBL and only a tiny minority hold to what you are saying (There is a higher percentage of YEC among Geologists).
But ultimately it is not about counting heads. have you studied earliest Christianity for yourself?
@ninjamojo711 No they are not in early Christainity except Price. They are egyptologists, or educated in greek and latin or just good authors. They may be smart guys but they are not experts in the field. Like me asking a Biologist his opinion in philosophy. He may be smart but he is not an expert.
I said truth is not a numbers game, I said that. You said that "historians" say early Christians got their material from pagan sources. This is not the case in NT Jewish Christianity
@agnostaxian So if they don't belong to certain association approved by you, they cannot be considered experts? You appeal to authority carries no weight.
If you dared to actually see, they are experts in Comparative Religion, Ancient Myth, Greek translation, New Testament studies etc. of which Christianity is included.
This gives their research more credibility because they are willing to research outside of box of Christianity with out the preconceived doctrine to fit with in their research.
@ninjamojo711 so if someone has a doctorate in astronomy are they an expert in biology because they are "out of the box" of biologists? Come on friend, U know Just because someone has a degree in "ancient religion" does not make them an expert in Early Christianity. But again, only Price is an expert in New Testament none of the others are.
But look at the evidence yourself- The New Testament fits much better from an apocalyptic Judaism paradigm than a mythic pagan one.
Professor of New Testament at University of Toronto /School of Theology).
Attended Oxford University on a Rhodes Scholarship.
Studied theology and tutored in Greek at Wycliffe College, University of Toronto. Won prizes and several scholarships in homiletics, Classics, Greek and Latin.
Awarded The Silver Medal for Outstanding Journalism by the State of Israel in 1976
@agnostaxian Early Christianity is part of the broader subject of Religion, Ancient Myth Greek translation etc.
You want to make it sound like those that study Early Christianity are compared to oranges and those that study other early religions are apples. Sorry, it's all part of the same fruit salad.
@ninjamojo711 name a central teaching in the New Testament that has a better explanation from paganism than prophetic apocalyptic Judaism. The Death and resurrection of Christ? The Deity of Christ? The Eucharist remembrance? All these have their DNA in Judaism in the New Testament.
@agnostaxian You're not quite getting it. Christianity is a blend of Hellenistic Jewish midrash and Pagan (Greek, Roman Egypt) mystery religion. It's a natural product of it's time and place.
@agnostaxian "The truth is, there is no one, whether Ruler of a synagogue, or Samaritan, or Presbyter of the Christians, or mathematician, or astrologer, or magician, that does not do homage to Serapis. The Patriarch himself, when he comes to Egypt, is by some compelled to worship Serapis, and by others, Christ."
This has been flagged as spam show
Put an end to all religion. Begin a relationship with Jesus Christ. You need to repent. Moreover, you should ask God for eternal forgiveness through applying the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ to your life of sin within the quietness of your bedroom tonight. As an unrepentant sinner myself, I made this decision around 15 years ago. This is the most important decision that you could ever make. - Romans 10:9-10
paularenas26 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Let’s put an end to all religion.
Cut and paste URL into browser address bar:
endallreligions.blogspot.com
paularenas26 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You could repent. Moreover, you could ask God for eternal forgiveness through applying the death and resurrection of Jesus to your life of sin within the quietness of your bedroom tonight. As an unrepentant sinner myself, I made this decision around 15 years ago. This is the most important decision that you could ever make. - Romans 10:9-10
paularenas26 1 month ago
All of these parallels are fascinating but they aren't evidence for plagiarism by Xianity. I've been studying this my whole life & I think it was a genuine cult, possibly/probably formed around a real person, not a wholesale fabrication, wherever its early converts borrowed their embellishing myths from. But it remains a mystery, for the most part.
amaxamon 2 months ago
wouldn't it be more likely that early jewish christians were jewish in orientation rather than pagan?
agnostaxian 4 months ago
@agnostaxian Actually they were both..that's how we get Christianity. It comes from Jews of the Diaspora living in a Greek world under Roman rule and likely from Alexandria.
It is a synthesis of pagan (Greek, Roman, Egyptian) religion and Jewish midrash during Pax Romana and the blending of many cultures. Christianity is a pagan religion.
All the pagan myths blended and borrowed, assimilated and fused with each other.
Christianity is no exception.
ninjamojo711 2 months ago
@ninjamojo711 what you are saying is like saying Osama gets his spiritual guidance from Oprah. It is very historically unlikely. As Schweitzer says, why go to the far away pond of paganism with a leaky bucket when the stream of Judaism is right at your feet?
Early Jewish Christianity is best explained by Jewish antecedents not pagan.
What New Testament teaching is better explained as pagan in origin rather than Jewish?
Jews abhorred pagan myths, especially a pharisees like Paul
agnostaxian 2 months ago
@agnostaxian Paul changed from being a Pharisee to a proponent of the Christ crucified myth motif. He shed the Jewish rules to open up for the gentile (pagan).
The synthesis of Jewish midrash and Greek/Roman/Egyptian myth his highly likely. It would be unlikely if it didn't happen. There were more Jews living in Alexandria in and around the 1st century than any where else.
Historians even write that the worshippers of Seripas (culturally synthesized god) were the same worshippers of Christ.
ninjamojo711 2 months ago
@ninjamojo711 what scholars or historians say that? name 5 of them. have you studied early Christianity in depth at all?
agnostaxian 2 months ago
@agnostaxian
'Egypt, which you commended to me, my dearest Servianus, I have found to be wholly fickle and inconsistent, and continually wafted about by every breath of fame. The worshipers of Serapis (here) are called Christians, and those who are devoted to the god Serapis (I find), call themselves Bishops of Christ.'
–Hadrian to Servianus, 134A.D. (Quoted by Giles, ii p86)
ninjamojo711 2 months ago
@ninjamojo711 Is hadrian a scholar on early Christianity? again name 5 modern historians that think early Christianity (talkin about 1st century New Testament Christianity not 2nd century gnostics) is based on pagan myths. also, have you studied early Christianity? I am talking about what the early Christians themselves said not pagans about them.
agnostaxian 2 months ago
@agnostaxian Hadrian was Emperor at the time and was giving his observation to his brother. I'd call that first hand knowledge.
This would have been written before 134AD, around the time the earliest gospels show up.
If you want references from the early church, of course they are not going to admit assimilation, but early church fathers admit similarities from pre-existing Pagan god myths to Jesus.
See Tertullian, Origen and Clement of Alexandria,
ninjamojo711 2 months ago
@ninjamojo711 Yes, I know who Hadrian was but you need something earlier that 134 ad written by a Roman emperor.
Hmmm, You say the gospels were written around 134? interesting. OK we will side step that for now, let me ask you 3 basic question on the New Testament itself. what NT writing do most scholars think was written first, what was the date and why do scholars assign it to that date?
If you have truly studied what historians have to say about early Christianity, this is a softball.
agnostaxian 2 months ago
@agnostaxian I said that's around the time when the earliest gospels show up.
Mark is dated to be around 70 AD, Matt a few decades later to 80 or 90, Luke, John 90-100 AD.
Hadrian died in 138 and was Emperor since 117, so his observations would have been with in a few decades of the early gospels.
Paul's letters were written first in and around 55AD.
ninjamojo711 2 months ago
@ninjamojo711 but if Paul, Mark, Luke and the rest are dated such, how can what hadrian said in 134 have anything to with early Christianity? Let's say Christian bishops were worshiping seripas in Alexandria like Hadrian says (which I highly doubt), what does that have to do with 1st century New Testament Christianity?
agnostaxian 2 months ago
@agnostaxian The earliest mention of the gospels in Christian record is around 120AD. Hadrian's comments of the same era point to the fact that early christianity was fused, synthesized, assimilated with other pagan religions. The fact that pagan synthesis occurred early as well as later (Constantine follower of Mithra) shows again that Christianity is not original but just another Pagan religion and the official version is the result of Pax Romana. (Universal=Catholic)
ninjamojo711 2 months ago
@ninjamojo711 Ignatius is quoting from John in 110 AD. Read his material. We have found a fragment of the gospel of John that dates in the 120's. This means that gospel was in circulation at that time. Most scholars date it in the 90's.
Clement of Rome quotes from Matthew, Luke, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthains, Titus and Hebrews in the 90's under the Domitian persecution
agnostaxian 2 months ago
@agnostaxian I don't have issue with those dates. They prove nothing.
ninjamojo711 2 months ago
@agnostaxian Also, Eusebius the early church historian thinks the early Christians come out of Alexandria. He comes to this realization when he refers to the works of Philo of Alexandria (15BC- 50AD) and his references to the Theraputea.
ninjamojo711 2 months ago
@ninjamojo711 what early christians came out of alexandria before Paul, Peter, and James from 30-70's? The thing you quoted from Hadrian is 130's. Clearly later. What eusebian quotes leads you to think he thought that?
agnostaxian 2 months ago
@agnostaxian Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History, identified Philo's Therapeutae as the first Christians.
Philo described the Therapeutae in De vita contemplativa written around 10 CE.
Philo, a Hellenistic Jew also writes about the Greek Logos as the "son of God".
Sound familiar?…however Philo never mentions Jesus of Nazareth. Philo would have lived the exact same time as the "gospel events".
Philo's works survive because they are considered "Christian".
ninjamojo711 2 months ago
@agnostaxian ...and Apollo as mentioned by Paul as well as in Acts, who preaches Jesus "correctly" but is baptized by John instead of Paul comes from....where?.......can you guess?........wait for it......
Alexandria!
ninjamojo711 2 months ago
@ninjamojo711 Apollo is after Peter, James, John and Paul, all Jews But even if Apollo is from alexandria, the text only states that he knew the baptism of John, not that he taught pagan mystery religions that Most Jews abhorred
agnostaxian 2 months ago
@ninjamojo711 if you look at Paul's 1st letter to the Corinthians chapter 15, he quotes a tradition there that he received from those who were apostles before him (almost certainly Peter, John and James who he visited in the mid 30's that he talks about in Galatians 1& 2). He did not make it up. It is in a traditional rabbinic form to pass on. He talks about the death and resurrection "according to the scriptures".
The early Jewish disciples went to the OT to understand Jesus and his death
agnostaxian 2 months ago
@agnostaxian What Paul "received" is according to scriptures. The "scriptures" in this case is the Hebrew OT. It's not the gospels of Matt, Mark, Luke or John, they hadn't been written yet nor would they have been considered "scripture".
Paul doesn't say Peter, James or John told him anything. The gospel that Paul receives is the gospel of God through spirit and revealed in (OT) scripture, not a story about the earthly Jesus, of which the canonical gospels portray.
ninjamojo711 2 months ago
@ninjamojo711 Bro, that was my point, the antecedent of the central story of Jesus- death and resurrection- are from the Old Testament not paganism.
What happened after Jesus died. Peter, James, John, Mary and the rest they started experiencing Jesus in visions as alive that they explain as a "resurrection". They went to the Hebrew Scriptures (Not pagan sources) to understand these happenings and proclaimed his death for sins and resurrection to other Jews. Paul took the same message to pagans
agnostaxian 2 months ago
@agnostaxian Paul equates his apostleship to the others because of his vision and their vision.
Paul never mentions Mary, Virgin birth, healings, miracle stories, Sermon on the Mount are anything from the gospel narraitive...only Christ crucified, which is on a mystical realm. No mention of Golgatha, Jesus trial, empty tomb, walking zombies in Jerusalem.
ninjamojo711 2 months ago
@ninjamojo711 Paul mentions more than that- He mentions Jesus as son of David (Rom 1), He quotes the last supper tradition (1 Corinthians 11), He talks about the Lord's Brother and that the Lord taught being paid through the gospel was good (1 Cor. 9), Rom 12 is a summary of the "love your enemy" from Jesus traidition, Rom 13 is "render to Caesar" teaching, 1 Cor. 7 Paul mentions Jesus teaching on marriage, and of course that Jesus was crucified (1 Cor. 1).
agnostaxian 2 months ago
@agnostaxian He comes from David because scripturally that's how the Messiah is supposed come.
It's not necessarily literal. Hercules comes from Zeus. Horus from Osiris. They are still myth. However the mythicist case doesn't have to maintain no earthly prototype at all.
Only Jesus of Nazareth as described in the gospels never existed.
The prototype for the character could have been John the Baptist or the Teacher of Righteousness from the Essenes (which are connected to the Therapeutae).
ninjamojo711 2 months ago
@ninjamojo711 I am not arguing for Davidic sonship here, I am just saying early Christianity found in the New Testament is Jewish paradigm not pagan that is why they thought Jesus being a davidic descend was significant. If they were pagan in orientation then yes, they should have Jesus born of Zeus like hercules not of David
agnostaxian 2 months ago
@agnostaxian I'm not saying Christianity isn't Jewish in it's roots. I'm saying it's both Jewish and Greek (Pagan).
The logos philosophy is Greek and predates Christianity by at least 500 years. What's going on is a melding of cultures, philosophy and religion.
Alexandria was a huge melting pot and had the largest population of Jews of the diaspora. It's a natural evolution.
I'll continue:
ninjamojo711 2 months ago
@ninjamojo711 maybe you can argue that the Gospel of John is both but the rest in the New Testament is certainly Jewish in DNA. I would say that Christianity is rooted in Christianity with branches that can be enjoyed by greek pagan philosophical minds.
This was the view of the 2nd and 3rd century Christian apologists
agnostaxian 2 months ago
@ninjamojo711 When you read the New Testament, it fits so much better when read through a Jewish apocalyptic paradigm than a pagan one. The early Jewish Christians used Jewish categories to explain their movement. Jesus as God's revealed Word, His death for sins as the Lamb of God, His resurrection to usher in the New Age, The coming of the Spirit promised by the prophets, The salvation of the gentiles promised in Isa 2. The went to the Old Testament to find their New Theology not the Iliad
agnostaxian 2 months ago
@agnostaxian cont: The Greeks used allegory and myth to portray philosophy. This is how the gospels eventually come about.
Philo, a Hellenistic Jew is proof that at the beginning of the first century, Jews were using Jewish motifs in a Greek way. They weren't Pharisees, but were Jews open to a Greek world. The gospels are a result of Messiah midrash meshing with Greek Logos.
cont.
The gospels are written in Greek, not by illiterate Aramaic fishermen.
ninjamojo711 2 months ago
@agnostaxian cont: this is how the gospels were built. Paul refers to Christ as being revealed in scripture, the first gospel writers poured over the the Hebrew OT (Greek version of course) and formulated the gospel story from snippets of the OT. This is why some parts of the story seem ridiculous, but it's in order that the "prophecy" may come true.
ninjamojo711 2 months ago
@ninjamojo711 I disagree. The first proto-gospels came from what was remember by the Jerusalem followers of Jesus. People would ask questions about what Jesus said and did. They would remember as a community what he said (this is why it is not like the telephone game, a whole community was involved not one person to another). Now they did use OT motifs to put Jesus stories as they thought he fulfilled them but not from whole cloth. Many of the "prophecies" fulfilled seem shoehorned to fit Jesus
agnostaxian 2 months ago
@agnostaxian So, you subscribe to the historical Jesus, but most everything written about him is myth paradigm?
ninjamojo711 2 months ago
@ninjamojo711 I would say there are somethings very certain about Jesus- He was from nazareth, baptized by John, had a ministry of healings and exorcisms, proclaimed the coming kingdom of God to renew Israel, had 12 core disciples, caused a disturbance in the temple, was crucified and was seen by his disciples in visions after his death that they describe as a "resurrection". Most of the synoptics has a historical core but embellished. John is more mythological and developed. That is my view
agnostaxian 2 months ago
@agnostaxian I don't entirely disagree with your view. However it seems to me if there is so much myth and "prophecy" used to build the story, as well as contradiction between gospels, date and time being a huge one, I don't see much of an historical person left standing.
Anyways, it was good exchanging with you. I appreciate your ability to keep it civilzed. Too often these kinds of debates end up in the gutter.
Cheers!
ninjamojo711 2 months ago
@ninjamojo711 ditto back to you. great exchange, made me think and dust off some old research stuff. kept me on my toes. enjoyed it. have a great New Year. :)
agnostaxian 2 months ago
@ninjamojo711 It is much more likely that they had story about Jesus and went looking for fulfillments in the OT not the other way around. This is true not least with the virgin birth that Isa 7:14 seems to be saying nothing about the messiah being virgin born but they apply it to Jesus anyway. Why? very interesting
Although there were embellishments, I would say generallly the synoptics have historical data behind them, now John is another deal.
agnostaxian 2 months ago
@agnostaxian Matthew claims that the flight of Jesus' family to Egypt is a fulfillment of Hosea 11:1. ("When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt."
Is this Jesus or Israel? What's melding together now is the Messiah/Logos (Jewish/Pagan)
As Paul preaches "Christ with in you" and Philo teaches the Logos is the "Son of God", Greek philosophy of the Logos is the God's divinity with in you. The original story of Jesus in the gospels is an allegory.
ninjamojo711 2 months ago
@ninjamojo711 That is what I am saying, If they were making up a story about Jesus why would Matthew quote from Hosea 11 that has nothing to do with the messiah. It seems more likely that they had the story first, then went to the scriptures to back it up as "fulfilled". Jews would look at the Hos 11 passage and say "That is not about the messiah". Christians had the stories first, then went to scriptures not vice versa
agnostaxian 2 months ago
@agnostaxian There are other things that are head scratchers. "He shall be called a Nazarene." Matthew claims this was a fulfillment of prophecy, yet such a prophecy is not found anywhere in the Old Testament. It's likely a reference to a Nazarite in the OT.
This why they had Jesus born in Bethlehem (for another prophecy) and then travel back to Nazareth for the mistaken Nazarene prophecy.
ninjamojo711 2 months ago
@ninjamojo711 Yes, the "nazarene" scripture fulfillment is strange and I could see how you would say that Jesus born in bethlehem is created to fulfill a prophecy for that is more direct. although a minority of scholars think he may have been born there but historically unlikely in my view
agnostaxian 2 months ago
@ninjamojo711 Paul was in touch with Peter (Jesus' #1 disciple) and James (Jesus' brother)- Galatians 1-2. Christianity may have some parallels with mystery religions but its DNA is Jewish.
God's Logos in creation and revelation- Gen 1- God sends his word to create and reveal himself to prophets.
Jesus dies for sins and remembered in communion- Exodus 12 and Isa 53- Jesus is passover Lamb
Jesus rises from the dead- Dan. 12 and the Jewish eschatological hope at end times
The core is Jewish
agnostaxian 2 months ago
@ninjamojo711 The difference between Paul and some of the more conservative Jewish Christians was that Paul said they didn't have to follow the OT food laws or be circumcised. James and Peter agreed with this but James seems to not think Jew's should eat with pagan Christians while Paul did and Peter is a mediating figure between them as shown in Galatians 2. But over the death for sins and resurrection message, Peter, James, Paul and the rest agreed
agnostaxian 2 months ago
@agnostaxian Paul even admits there are other competing Christianities around including Apollo and Cephas.
ninjamojo711 2 months ago
@ninjamojo711 yes but 1 Corinthians 15 is what they all preached (15:11). also, how significant the differences were is speculative. Maybe it was just personality cult following. That seems to be what Paul is saying at the beginning but they did all agree on the death and resurrection of Jesus and his messianic status but anyway these are all Jews, no pagan teaching among them, no worship of Serapis was being taught by any of them. They would laugh at such a suggestion
agnostaxian 2 months ago
@agnostaxian Drinking of the blood and eating of the body is pagan. The Logos, being Greek philosophy would be "pagan". Resurrection is pagan. The son of God from a mortal woman is pagan. There is more.
ninjamojo711 2 months ago
@ninjamojo711 No, Paul sites that tradition in 1 Corinthians 11 and it was a remembered meal that Jesus had with his disciples the night before he died to celebrate the passover. Jesus is seen as the passover Lamb that the Jew "ate" every year. The blood was to save them from the angel of death.
Read Phil. 2, in there is a Jewish Christian hymn about Jesus that parallels how Jews saw How the Word and Wisdom of God revealed God to man and was at God's right hand.
fits better than a pagan origin
agnostaxian 2 months ago
@agnostaxian Yes, the Paschal Lamb is the Jewish part, but the eating of the flesh and drinking of the blood is Pagan. Notice the synthesis?
A devout Jew would abhor the drinking of blood and eating the flesh of a human.
ninjamojo711 2 months ago
@ninjamojo711 OK, but the root is Jewish but obviously they were not literally eating his body and drinking his blood. It was a remembrance and a representation and operated on a symbolic level as Jesus was the passover Lamb. Moses sprinkled blood on the Israelites as a symbol of their cleansing.
This was also a development out of his table fellowship with sinners and outcast and it is very likely the 12 had an encounter with Christ in a vision at a table fellowship or after it. This is the DNA
agnostaxian 2 months ago
@agnostaxian Interesting thing about Corinthians 15.
In verses 3-8 Paul makes no distinction between his vision of Christ and what the others before him saw.
According to Paul, he only saw a vision of Christ. He uses the Greek word "opthe", which means to see in a vision or dream, not actually physically seeing. We know from his conversion story, that this is what he meant.
He uses the same word "opthe" when he refers to what Cephas, James. the 12, the 500 saw.
Christ is only in a vision!
ninjamojo711 2 months ago
@agnostaxian I can give you a list of modern scholars, but I'll guess all you'll do is try to discredit them some how.
Tom Harpur, Earl Doherty, Peter Gandy, Tim Freke, Gerald Massey, Wallis Budge, Robert Price, Alvar Ellegard, Alvin Boyd Kuhn.
ninjamojo711 2 months ago
@ninjamojo711 bro, none of these are scholars of early Christianity with the exception of Price and even he quotes Bultmann saying that the pagan mythicist view is "insane" in recognition of the extreme nature of his view among scholars.
There are about 8,000 scholars in the SBL and only a tiny minority hold to what you are saying (There is a higher percentage of YEC among Geologists).
But ultimately it is not about counting heads. have you studied earliest Christianity for yourself?
agnostaxian 2 months ago
@agnostaxian All of the people I've listed are scholars of religion, ancient myth, early Christianity etc. How can you claim they are not?
BTW truth isn't a numbers game.
ninjamojo711 2 months ago
@ninjamojo711 No they are not in early Christainity except Price. They are egyptologists, or educated in greek and latin or just good authors. They may be smart guys but they are not experts in the field. Like me asking a Biologist his opinion in philosophy. He may be smart but he is not an expert.
I said truth is not a numbers game, I said that. You said that "historians" say early Christians got their material from pagan sources. This is not the case in NT Jewish Christianity
agnostaxian 2 months ago
@agnostaxian So if they don't belong to certain association approved by you, they cannot be considered experts? You appeal to authority carries no weight.
If you dared to actually see, they are experts in Comparative Religion, Ancient Myth, Greek translation, New Testament studies etc. of which Christianity is included.
This gives their research more credibility because they are willing to research outside of box of Christianity with out the preconceived doctrine to fit with in their research.
ninjamojo711 2 months ago
@ninjamojo711 so if someone has a doctorate in astronomy are they an expert in biology because they are "out of the box" of biologists? Come on friend, U know Just because someone has a degree in "ancient religion" does not make them an expert in Early Christianity. But again, only Price is an expert in New Testament none of the others are.
But look at the evidence yourself- The New Testament fits much better from an apocalyptic Judaism paradigm than a mythic pagan one.
agnostaxian 2 months ago
@agnostaxian Tom Harpur:
Professor of New Testament at University of Toronto /School of Theology).
Attended Oxford University on a Rhodes Scholarship.
Studied theology and tutored in Greek at Wycliffe College, University of Toronto. Won prizes and several scholarships in homiletics, Classics, Greek and Latin.
Awarded The Silver Medal for Outstanding Journalism by the State of Israel in 1976
ninjamojo711 2 months ago
@agnostaxian Early Christianity is part of the broader subject of Religion, Ancient Myth Greek translation etc.
You want to make it sound like those that study Early Christianity are compared to oranges and those that study other early religions are apples. Sorry, it's all part of the same fruit salad.
ninjamojo711 2 months ago
@ninjamojo711 name a central teaching in the New Testament that has a better explanation from paganism than prophetic apocalyptic Judaism. The Death and resurrection of Christ? The Deity of Christ? The Eucharist remembrance? All these have their DNA in Judaism in the New Testament.
agnostaxian 2 months ago
@agnostaxian You're not quite getting it. Christianity is a blend of Hellenistic Jewish midrash and Pagan (Greek, Roman Egypt) mystery religion. It's a natural product of it's time and place.
ninjamojo711 2 months ago
@agnostaxian "The truth is, there is no one, whether Ruler of a synagogue, or Samaritan, or Presbyter of the Christians, or mathematician, or astrologer, or magician, that does not do homage to Serapis. The Patriarch himself, when he comes to Egypt, is by some compelled to worship Serapis, and by others, Christ."
Hadrian to Servianus, 134A.D
ninjamojo711 2 months ago