Asclepius & the appeal of Jesus to Gentiles

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Etu Malku

No doubt Mithraism played an important role in the mythology of Christianity.

Actually, all the evidence shows that Mithraism copied Christian motifs.

Much of the writing presenting the parallels between the two is spurious. In fact I think the only place where Christian symbols are present in a Mithraic context is in and around Rome, where Christianity had taken root.

The link to radarmark above covers that off as well.

Originally Posted by Etu Malku

Abrahamic religions for the most part are very unbalanced when it comes to the sexes.

There's enough in Scripture to turn that on its head, unfortunately, it did not. It's just another case of culture asserting itself.

God bless,

Thomas

[radarmark]

Yep. Post #6 on this thread is really good reference (I think that is the one Thomas meant).

[Etu Malku]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Actually, all the evidence shows that Mithraism copied Christian motifs.

David Ulansey considers the bull-slaying Mithras to be a new god who began to be worshiped in the 1st century BC, this would make it 200-300 years before Christianity really took off.

Originally Posted by Etu Malku
Abrahamic religions for the most part are very unbalanced when it comes to the sexes.

There's enough in Scripture to turn that on its head, unfortunately, it did not. It's just another case of culture asserting itself.

I see quite a lot of women bashing in scripture. All three major Abrahamic religions (particularly Judaism and Islam) are male predominant. Just because Christianity throws the girl a bone and makes her a saint now and then to look good, doesn't make up for all the oppression.

I'll change my tune when I see a woman wearing one of those goofy Bishop hats!

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Etu Malku

I'll change my tune when I see a woman wearing one of those goofy Bishop hats!

ROFLMAO!

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Etu Malku

David Ulansey considers the bull-slaying Mithras to be a new god who began to be worshiped in the 1st century BC, this would make it 200-300 years before Christianity really took off.

I don't dispute that Mithraism is older. My point is, Mithraism is not saying anything like what Christianity says, although it seems impossible to determine just what Mithraism is saying at all. I think those who see Christianity as adopting Mithraic iconography are seeing what they want to see.

From the evidence and scholarship, according to the sources I elect to back, it seems that Christian iconography appears to influence later Mithraism, rather than Mithraic iconography influencing Christianity.

Originally Posted by Etu Malku

I see quite a lot of women bashing in scripture. All three major Abrahamic religions (particularly Judaism and Islam) are male predominant. Just because Christianity throws the girl a bone and makes her a saint now and then to look good, doesn't make up for all the oppression.

What religions aren't?

But that same attitude of 'throwing a bone' to the feminine is what allows exegetes to push the feminine into the background. I would argue that certain NT texts are absolutely bringing the feminine to the fore — the annunciation to Mary directly, and Joseph's being informed only indirectly; the risen Christ appears to the Magdalene first, and gives her a message to take to the apostles; His mother's words at Cana ...

Originally Posted by Etu Malku

I'll change my tune when I see a woman wearing one of those goofy Bishop hats!

I think women will have something to say about those goofy hats before they put one on!

God bless,

Thomas

[Etu Malku]

Originally Posted by Thomas

I don't dispute that Mithraism is older. My point is, Mithraism is not saying anything like what Christianity says, although it seems impossible to determine just what Mithraism is saying at all. I think those who see Christianity as adopting Mithraic iconography are seeing what they want to see.

From the evidence and scholarship, according to the sources I elect to back, it seems that Christian iconography appears to influence later Mithraism, rather than Mithraic iconography influencing Christianity.

I do see a later Christian influence, but that was the goal of Christianity, to assimilate into the Pagan systems and systematically take them over. Hence you'll find Christian influence in all the later Belief Systems.

It is clear that Christianity adopted an aspect of Mithraism - the celebration of the birth of Christ on December 25, a tradition that began in the 4th century.

December 25 was also the birthday of the more popular Roman god known as the "Unconquered Sun" (with whom Constantine identified himself before his conversion to Christianity), who was closely associated with Mithras.



Sol Invictus became the birth of the Christ.

What religions aren't?

Most Pagan religions worship the Goddess aspect. Luciferianism balances the Male/Female principles equally.

But that same attitude of 'throwing a bone' to the feminine is what allows exegetes to push the feminine into the background. I would argue that certain NT texts are absolutely bringing the feminine to the fore — the annunciation to Mary directly, and Joseph's being informed only indirectly; the risen Christ appears to the Magdalene first, and gives her a message to take to the apostles; His mother's words at Cana ...

I'll agree that the NT does represent the Feminine in a better light than the dark, violence of the OT.

I think women will have something to say about those goofy hats before they put one on!

You may have a "POINT" there (*pun intended )

Diabolus Beatus,
Etu

[Thomas]

Hi Etu Malku —

I rather think that notion is one of those ideas, repreated so widely and so often, it's assumed to be true. But there are a number of very good reasons to doubt it. (Where is the data tying December 25th to Mithraism?)

And what about January 6th, the date upon which the Greek East celebrates Christmas? No ... I suggest that theory doesn't stand up.

Evidence of syncretism is ample throughout the Greek and Roman worlds, the pagan gods were not exclusive. But not the Christian world. A simple test to catch out a Christian was ask them to offer sacrifice to the gods. It seems highly unlikely that they would evidence such fidelity on the one hand, then copy so easily on the other.

The popular theory goes that as the Romans had their mid-winter Saturnalia in late December, and that Emperor Aurelian established the feast of the birth of Sol Invictus on December 25 and that Christmas is really a spin-off from these pagan solar festivals. Early Christians deliberately chose these dates to encourage the spread of Christmas and Christianity throughout the Roman world: If Christmas looked like a pagan holiday, more pagans would be open to both the holiday and the God whose birth it celebrated.

Significantly, the first mention of a date for Christmas (c. 200) and the earliest celebrations that we know about (c. 250–300) come in a period when Christians were not borrowing from pagan tradition — they were defending themselves from them, and defending their doctrine from heresy.

Again, it seems somewhat quizzical that a church, so often accused of the vilent persecution of heretics, would engage in such a patently heretical pracice as incorporating pagan tradition into their own ... and all without a single mention? Highly unlikely.

In the first few centuries the persecuted Christian minority was greatly concerned with distancing itself from the larger, public pagan religious observances, such as sacrifices, games and holidays. This was still true as late as the violent persecutions of the Christians conducted by the Roman emperor Diocletian between 303 and 312AD.

This did change after Constantine converted to Christianity. From the mid-fourth century on, we do find Christians deliberately adapting and Christianizing pagan festivals, but not from the third, and certainly not earlier. Thus it's unlikely that the date was simply selected to correspond with pagan solar festivals.

Here we broach the topic of 'esoteric Christianity' and the Recapitulation Theory of Redemption that originates with Irenaeus and is founded on St Paul. One of the keystones of this thesis is that Christ undoes what was done: He is the New Adam, His mother the New Eve, and that the course of history is reversed ... Christian esoterists have long made much of the rolling back of the stone from the tomb ...

The key to dating Jesus’ birth lies in the dating of His death. Tertullian reported that the 14th of Nisan (the day of the crucifixion according to the Gospel of John) in the year Jesus died was equivalent to March 25 in the Roman (solar) calendar. March 25 is nine months before December 25. March 25 was later recognised as the Feast of the Annunciation – the commemoration of Jesus’ conception. Thus Jesus was believed to have been conceived, and crucified, on the same day of the year.

This idea appears in an anonymous Christian treatise titled On Solstices and Equinoxes, which appears to come from fourth-century North Africa. The treatise states: “Therefore our Lord was conceived on the eighth of the kalends of April in the month of March (March 25), which is the day of the passion of the Lord and of his conception. For on that day he was conceived on the same he suffered.” Based on this, the treatise dates Jesus’ birth to the winter solstice.

Augustine was familiar with this association. In On the Trinity he writes: “For he (Jesus) is believed to have been conceived on the 25th of March, upon which day also he suffered; so the womb of the Virgin, in which he was conceived, where no one of mortals was begotten, corresponds to the new grave in which he was buried, wherein was never man laid, neither before him nor since. But he was born, according to tradition, upon December the 25th.

The same theory existed in the Greek East. Rather than work from the 14th of Nisan in the Hebrew calendar, the easterners used the 14th of the first spring month (Artemisios) in their local Greek calendar (April 6 to us).

April 6 is, tra-laaa, nine months before January 6 – the eastern date for Christmas.

Bishop Epiphanius of Salamis writes that on April 6, “The lamb was shut up in the spotless womb of the holy virgin, he who took away and takes away in perpetual sacrifice the sins of the world.” Today, the Armenian Church celebrates the Annunciation in early April (on the 7th, not the 6th) and Christmas on January 6.

Thus, we have Christians in two parts of the world calculating Jesus’ birth on the basis that his death and conception took place on the same day (March 25 or April 6) and coming up with two close but different results (December 25 and January 6).

The above might seem convoluted to the modern mind, but to the mind of antiquity, that's the way the world worked. Everything is symbolic. In Christian art, numerous paintings of the Annunciation show the infant Jesus descending from heaven on or with a small cross — the conception brings the promise of salvation through Jesus’ death.

The notion that creation and redemption should occur at the same time of year is also reflected in ancient Jewish tradition, recorded in the Talmud: “In Nisan the world was created; in Nisan the Patriarchs were born; on Passover Isaac was born...and in Nisan they [our ancestors] will be redeemed in time to come.”

Elements of the festival that developed from the fourth century until modern times unquestionably derive from pagan traditions, but the actual date most probably derives from Judaic and Christian theology ...

God bless

Thomas

[salishan]

Thomas
exquisite creature

in the doctrinal battles between early-Church intellectuals
in order to establish the canons of faith , yes
there are many different mythic-narratives being argued-over
(narratives about Jesus , & narratives about Peter & Paul & others)

but to average-folk (back then) , the appeal of Christianity has little to do with "Doctrine"
(rather) the appeal is much more immediate , is more existential

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Originally Posted by Thomas

Myths also encompass truths and realities which are too big or too profound for simple comprehension ... or put another way, they make the obscure accessible. The Greek myths, for example, are more than just stories.

yeah , i've read Carl Jung & Joseph Campbell
"myths" (& "faery stories") may contain contents which ring psychologically true
("philosophically" "profound") but are existentially false
("myths" have scant to do with how normal people actually live their lives)

but yes , Thomas
u are correct
myths are powerful
ugly-powerful (dangerous , vilely sectarian)

parables (for Jesus , as for certain Hebrew Bible authors)
serve as a corrective to this awful-power of mythic-narrative

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Thomas , u should not "idealize" terms
(this is what is false in most "classical" scholarship
u should keep the terms u employ , literal & neutral)

"myth" (standing by itself) is a loaded-term

(that is why i prefer "folk-legend" or "lore"
there is no "huge assumption" here
just a tale being constructed over time
being continually re-imagined , reconstructed
thereby dissolving most historic facts , but retaining some)

there is (however) something canonical about "myth"
once it is written down , it becomes sectarian
it contains ideological-force

A is a mythic-narrative
B reads like A
therefore B is a mythic-narrative

yes
a tale which "reads like" a narrative , is a narrative
the appeal of "myth" is a narrative appeal , a sectarian appeal
not an existential appeal
("myth" is an ideal , where "mythic-narrative" is a real thing
a process , not a conclusion)
the logic does hold , once u define things properly

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Originally Posted by Thomas

The Jesus of Scripture is the Jesus of history.

no , only fragments of Scripture can possibly be history

no
the "Jesus of Scripture" is the Jesus of doctrinal history
(the "Jesus" of the winners in the battle for canonical inclusion
a "Jesus" portrayed via one particular mythic-narrative , rejecting other narratives)

i am more interested in Moses
(the Moses-of-history)
than i am in the "Moses" of the Moses-mythic-narrative

i am more interested in Jesus
(the Jesus-of-history)
than i am in the "Jesus" of the Jesus-mythic-narrative

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Jesus

Originally Posted by Thomas

His appeal was neither as 'healer', nor 'warrior'

please read some John Dominic Crossan , Thomas
(i.e.) to this eminent scholar , "healer" is half of Jesus' principal appeal
(as i explain in my earlier post)

the other half of this appeal (to Crossan) is the "common meal"
(instituted by Jesus , as compliment/follow-up to healing)

(for Crossan) "healing & communion" is "Christianity" to common-folk
during this faith's first 3 centuries
(is "grass-roots" Christianity , not the "philosopher's" Christianity)

healing (& common-meal) , this is an appeal which
(is non-mythic , non-doctrinal) an appeal (rather)
which is immediate & comprehensible (which is "existentially real")

but (to me , contra-Crossan) there is also a 3rd existential appeal
(which Christianity evokes , in its early centuries)

Originally Posted by Thomas

Christianity also adopted a strong social element from Judaism, which without doubt added to its popularity ... by the close of the first century, the Church in Rome had some 1,500 widows and orphans on its books, and a Roman senator declared in the Senate that (and I can't for the life of me find the reference) 'even the Christians look after their people better than we do!'
...
it was faith and grass-roots social justice that powered the spread of the religion, not philosophy.

which is also Rodney Stark's take upon
the success of early Christianity

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Thomas , nascent-Christianity gets along pretty-well despite its ...
(despite u'r beloved) ... intellectuals

there are (at least) 3 sound concrete-reasons
why Christianity has an early grassroots appeal
(non-philosophical/non-mythic appeal)
to common-folk in the Roman Empire

1. healing
2. common-meal
3. social services

& (to me) this triune-appeal is the strength of early Christianity

i.e.
to novice-believers , it is what makes this new-religion feel real

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by salishan

but to average-folk (back then), the appeal of Christianity has little to do with "Doctrine" (rather) the appeal is much more immediate , is more existential

D'you think so? You're quite wrong, you know.

It was everything to do with doctrine.

In the height of the Arian disputes, one 'intellectual' (as you would have it) bemoaned that he couldn't even buy fruit at the market without being engaged by stall-holders as to whether indeed 'there was a time when he was not' as the Arian Party declared!

Indeed, the 'Arian Heresy' only came to light when the 'common people' complained to their bishop that their presbyter Arius was preaching false doctrine ...

And at the height of the dispute, there were serious confrontations between the two parties ...

You see, in those days, what you believed really did matter, it was existential, it was a matter of life and death ... it wasn't an exercise in rationalism as it is today ...

In the 60s, there were running battles in Rome between Jews and Christians. I'm not justifying it, I'm just telling you that people believed what they believed. That's one of the reasons Nero thought he could get away with his persecution in 65AD, but it backfired.

To a degree yes, but we moderns place far more weight on the existential and the experiential today than man did then, that is well attested. So today we need 'evidence', we need 'proof', we need 'empiricism', whereas for the average folk, faith suffices ...

As an aside, one of the interesting points is that, whilst the Fathers argued the nature of the Incarnation and the Trinity on through to the sixth century and beyond, the assumption that they invented those doctrines is quite erroneous.

From the very beginning, the simple folk believed that Jesus was the Son of God come in the flesh, who lived and died and rose again, and ascended to the right hand of His Father, and that the Holy Spirit came and dwells in and with His Church, and that the People of God are the Mystical Body of the Lord ... like today, they saw no need to rationalise or intellectualise, they simply believed.

+++

Originally Posted by salishan

yeah, i've read Carl Jung & Joseph Campbell
"myths" (& "faery stories") may contain contents which ring psychologically true ("philosophically" "profound") but are existentially false ("myths" have scant to do with how normal people actually live their lives)

That's not quite accurate ...

They are not 'existentially false' (indeed the laws of physics have precious little to do with how normal live their lives, few understand how electricity works, they just trust it to) ...

The more accurate would be they transmit truths that themselves transcend the 'normal' domain of things, but in the domain in which they are real, this world is not ...

It's a complex issue, and often misunderstood. People too readily embrace the idea of maya to mean the world is extrinsically not real ... an untruth that a dropped hammer on the toe will soon illuminate ... the point is that the phenomenal world is intrinsically not real, because it is subsistent, and indeed each domain is real unto itself, but not real in relation to higher domains ...

Thus the content of myth and faery tale might seem unreal, but nevertheless they detail cause and effect.

Originally Posted by salishan

myths are powerful

Indeed they are.

Originally Posted by salishan

ugly-powerful (dangerous, vilely sectarian)

Depends on the myth.

Originally Posted by salishan

parables (for Jesus , as for certain Hebrew Bible authors) serve as a corrective to this awful-power of mythic-narrative

Oooh no ... you're quite wrong there!

Parable is Greek. The Hebrew term is mashal and traditional commentaries state that without them, you're lost!

"Rabbi Hanian, said: "Until the time of Shlomo (Solomon) the Torah could have been compared to a well full of cool refreshing water, but because of its extraordinary depth no one could get to the bottom. What was necessary was to find a rope long enough to tie to the bucket in order to bring up the water. Shlomo made up this rope with his parables and thus enabled everyone to reach to the profoundest depths of the well." ref. here and here
Thus the mashal or parable is an hermeneutic key ... check out mashal on Google.

+++

Originally Posted by salishan

"myth" (standing by itself) is a loaded-term

Then allow me to suggest, with reference to the above, that your loading is erroneous ...

Originally Posted by salishan

that is why i prefer "folk-legend" or "lore"

Different thing altogether. There is legend and lore in my family history, but none of it mythic.

Originally Posted by salishan

the logic does hold , once u define things properly

But if the definition is false?

Originally Posted by salishan

no , only fragments of Scripture can possibly be history

Really?

Originally Posted by salishan

the "Jesus of Scripture" is the Jesus of doctrinal history (the "Jesus" of the winners in the battle for canonical inclusion a "Jesus" portrayed via one particular mythic-narrative, rejecting other narratives)

So what's your option ... include them all? That seems more irrational than arguing their veracity in the first place.

Originally Posted by salishan

i am more interested in Jesus
(the Jesus-of-history) than i am in the "Jesus" of the Jesus-mythic-narrative

That's my point. The Jesus of your so-called mythic-narrative is the only one you've got, the other one is an invention — The Jesus Seminar is the third attempt to invent the Jesus of History, and alreday it's been disposed of by scholars.

The JS process of 'rationalising' or 'demythologising' Scripture is just another exercise in self-ratification.

Originally Posted by salishan

... please read some John Dominic Crossan ...

I have, as in my studies I was obliged to read arguments for and contrary to my own opinions. I find the weight of argument against Crossan telling, and I find the methodology of the Jesus Seminar utterly, utterly flawed.

Suffice to say if you used their 'scholarly' method in presenting a physics paper, you'd be failed on the spot!

A useful critique can be found here

Originally Posted by salishan

(for Crossan) "healing & communion" is "Christianity" to common-folk during this faith's first 3 centuries (is "grass-roots" Christianity , not the "philosopher's" Christianity)

It's evident that Crossan does not believe what the common-folk of the first three centuries believed — they believed in healing and communion, but Crossan assumes this is all superficial ... ask why.

I happen to believe those common folk believed that Christ was (and is) present in them, with them, and they in Him and with Him, in the Mystery of the Eucharist ... there's evidence for that which Crossan chooses to ignore.

I think Crossan's thesis is a construct that does not stand up to rigorous examination ... too many self-serving assumptions.

Originally Posted by salishan

Thomas , nascent-Christianity gets along pretty-well despite its ... (despite u'r beloved) ... intellectuals

Salishan, my dear Salishan, Crossan is your own 'beloved intellectual' ...

The common folk did not believe in the doctrine of the philosophers, they believed in the Gospel, something Crossan goes at great philosophical lengths to undermine ... and, you can believe me, for it gives me no great pleasure to say it, but if Crossan preached then what he does now, he'd have those 'common-folk' on his doorstep, and they wouldn't be happy, they'd see his as worse than Arius (for whom I have no little sympathy) ...

Originally Posted by salishan

there are (at least) 3 sound concrete-reasons
why Christianity has an early grassroots appeal (non-philosophical/non-mythic appeal)

Yes, but over and above all that, was the appeal of the Mysteries ... the life in Christ.

God bless,

Thomas

[salishan]

Thomas
exquisite creature

okay , i read
"A Review of John Dominic Crossan’s The Historical Jesus" by Anthony Horvath

jeez , Thomas !
that's an hour of my life i'll never get back !
(u actually spend u'r days reading such BS ? )
even if Crossan's scholarship is as problematical as u say
why choose a third-rate hack-scholar to critique Crossan ?
(surely even u can tell that Crossan is in an entirely different league , right ?! )

i do not know the politics surrounding (nor membership of) the "Jesus Seminar"
nor do i care to
i just know books which enrich my life
that do not treat me like a child
books that have opened religion back up to me

John Dominic Crossan & N.T. Wright & Marcus Borg & Helmut Koester in New Testament studies
serious-minded , thorough scholars (guys who
dig deep , think deep)

sure , the Jesus-Seminar "methodology" is a bit shaky
(but it is far from "discredited" , like u blithely claim)
just add to their minimalist reading of scripture
a deep historical context like Crossan & Wright & others do
& a living picture of a 1st century Jewish parablist/prophet
(not the Disney-remake) comes into remarkably sharp focus

Horvath (supporting his bland doctrinaire cartoon-Jesus) can offer us
nothing close to a better (to a more insightful) historical "methodology"
than does the (supposedly "reviled") Jesus Seminar results
(can u , Thomas ? )

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

at UNC-Chapel Hill , one Jesus-Seminar-influenced scholar
begins his 2nd "Historical Jesus" lecture like this

Originally Posted by Bart Ehrman

I've decided that the best place to begin our study is by summarizing for you the life of a remarkable man who lived nearly 2,000 years ago.

The accounts of his life may sound familiar to you.
1. Before he was born, his mother knew he would not be a normal child. An angelic visitor told her that her son would be divine.
2. His birth was accompanied by miraculous signs and wonders and as a child, he was religiously precocious.
3. As an adult, he left home to engage in an itinerant preaching ministry, teaching his good news that people should live for what is spiritual, not the material things of this world.
4. He gathered disciples and did miracles to confirm them in their faith.
5. He raised the ire of many of those in power, who had him brought up on charges before the Roman authorities.
6. Even after he left this world, though, his followers claimed that he had ascended to heaven and that they had seen him alive afterwards. They wrote books about his life, and some of these writings survive today.

I doubt any of you have ever read them, and I doubt if many of you have even heard the name of the man I've been describing: Apollonius of Tyana. He was a famous neo-Pythagorean philosopher of the first century AD, a worshipper of pagan gods, whose life and teachings are recorded for us in the writings of his later follower Philostratus, The Life of Apollonius of Tyana.

Apollonius lived at about the same time as Jesus, although they never knew each other. Their followers, though, knew each other and had heated debates about who was superior.

These were not the only two men believed to be divine. Jesus may be the only miracle-working Son of Gyd that we know about in our world, but he was not at all the only one talked about in his world.

yes , a bit of a cheap-shot
but Thomas , it makes its point

what separates Jesus out from the crowd of 1st-century "miracle-workers" ?

for Ehrman
Jesus' ultimate life-purpose can be located in Jesus' (supposed) "apocalyptic" eschatology

here , John Dominic Crossan is more nuanced

Originally Posted by John Dominic Crossan

Apocalyptic eschatology announces the ...
imminent and cataclysmic divine intervention to restore peace and justice to a disordered world.
...
Sapiential eschatology, on the other hand, emphasizes ...
how to live here and now today so that Gyd's present power is forcibly evident to all.
...
Apocalyptic eschatology is world-negation stressing imminent divine intervention:
we wait for Gyd to act;
sapiential eschatology is world-negation emphasizing immediate divine imitation:
Gyd waits for us to act.

The former is the message of John the Baptist;
the latter that of Jesus.

The Essential Jesus (1994) page 8

this is deep stuff , Thomas
why should i read hacks like Horvath , instead ?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Horvath's entire (un-nuanced) book-review can be summed-up in one (polemical) phrase

Originally Posted by Anthony Horvath

Crossan's ... anti-supernaturalistic bias

i have not read William Lane Craig or Gary R. Habermas (who Horvath references)
but it sounds like they do no better

i (personally) believe in the supernatural

but i also believe that the "supernatural"
has been (miserably) misconstrued
by doctrinaire monotheists of all stripes

i believe that Jesus' supernaturalism is far more profound than
all the "documented" (run-of-the-mill , Roman-era) "magic-acts"
enacted by countless pagan (& a few monotheist) sorcerers
(whose names & acts come down to us in 2000yo historic-documents)

by implication , Horvath is asking Crossan to treat
not just the Gospel-reports of Jesus' magic-acts , but also
all these other magic-acts , as credible

Thomas ,
Q if all these (pagan & Christian) "miracle"-reports are accepted (on thin evidence) as true ...
how (then) is Jesus special ?
A (my answer & i think Crossan's) Jesus importance does not reside in these magic-acts !

or
Q if all these "miracle"-reports are rejected as false ...
how (again) is Jesus special ?
A Jesus importance does not reside in these magic-acts !

u lecture me on logic , Thomas
think about it

this is why (as a scholar) u treat all magic-acts
(treat all superficially "supernatural" acts) as irrelevant
(not because u "have a bias" against the supernatural
but it is instead , a question of where u draw the line)

if u accept all Gospel "accounts" of everyday "supernatural" acts as true
& reject all pagan "accounts" of "supernatural" acts as false
how (as an unbiased scholar) do u justify such prejudice ?
how (as scholar) can u look u'r self in the face in the mirror each morning ?

no , u (instead) look for real supernaturalism
like Paul of Tarsus does , or
(today) u look for it in the likes of Crossan (sapiential eschatology)
or in someone like N.T. Wright (c.f. Wright)

why feed me junk-food , Thomas
when u could be feeding me milk & honey ?

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by salishan

jeez, Thomas! that's an hour of my life i'll never get back! (u actually spend u'r days reading such BS ? )

Well now you know how I feel about Crossan!

Suffice to say there's enough open criticism of the Jesus Seminar on the web to make the point. Check out N.T. Wright on the matter, you seem to respect him, and he's got nothing good to say about them. I think he wouldn't take too kindly to be lumped in with them, either.

I don't know what you mean by 'supernaturalism' ... again I can agree with Wright who sees in the Canonical Gospels the revelation of an inchoate Trinitarian theology that would take centuries to unravel.

That we used Greek philosophy to unpack Revelation has its benefits and its drawbacks ... the benefit is it frees us from the narrow containment of a God who is the possession of the Hebrew peoples, but on the other hand it can tend to abstract God into a neoPlatonic ideal ... and which the Hebrew commentaries would provide a useful corrective.

But either way, I'd rather the God of Jerusalem, even filtered through Athens (to misquote Tertullian), than the god of pseudo-scholarly relativism in which subjective credulity is portrayed as the benchmark of truth, in which 'god' is just the projection of a cultural aspiration.

God bless,

Thomas

[radarmark]

Well said, Thomas! Even though we have differing opinions about the Seminar and Hovarth or Revelation needing to be unpacked or Revelation as history. We need more godly behavior and less modern, scientistic, Western, culturally-driven behavior.

[BrotherMichaelSky]

Originally Posted by salishan

in an era (Hellenistic) when the high gods
seem increasingly far-away & impersonal
(relevant only to the rich & powerful
who can afford to sacrifice at their temples)
Asclepius garners a strong appeal to the average Jenny & Joe

not a god of strength or speed or beauty or authority , (but merely)
a hero turned into a god , a deified-human
(one of the lower Greek gods) , Asclepius is a great healer
(often running afoul of some high god , by healing a god-cursed human
even bringing a handful of humans back from the dead)
Asclepius feels close-at-hand , a kindly personable god
a caring friend , with a bowl of soup at u'r bedside

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

the Hellenistic & Imperial Roman eras are anxious times
for individuals (family & tribal bonds are breaking down) , so
even when Christianity is making huge inroads in the Roman Empire
(old Temples shutting down for lack of patronage)
the cult of Asclepius remains strong (well into post-Constantine times)
& remains (religiously) the last strong Greek competitor to the Jesus-cult

both of these deified-humans (Jesus & Asclepius) are savior figures
each capable of overcoming Fate , of subduing Dread
& each are close & comforting , a caring hand caressing u'r tired soul

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

is the power of the new Christian faith , this personal appeal of Jesus ?
is this what large masses of people , during the Roman Imperial era
yearn for ? , a caring deity who feels like he is attending to u personally ?

giving u hope , close-at-hand ?

Salishan
Dear Heart



Were you aware that asclepius was once called " The Waterbearer"?
Do you realize that Asclepius was the thirteenth sign of the Zodiac - until the Catholic church arranged a new calendar?

Do you realize as well, that on Dec 22 of 2012 the zodiac sign which will be on the ecliptic is Asclepius?
Do you realize that this was entirely the reason for the 2012 prophesies?

Asclepius was the water bearer - I have offered in another place on this forum to expound on how "the Waters" is a very important concept in Christianity - which was also a victim of Doctrine.

The Healing which was attributed to Asclepius was indeed physical - but was accomplished through spirituality. The staff with twined serpents was once the symbol for His temples ( and has been stolen by the medical profession )... and has a direct correlation to the Staves and Serpents which are found sprinkled through the Christian texts... but they are in Gnostic code ( probably accomplished by essenes - who were a very respected section of the Jewish Priesthood - one third of them in fact )

Furthermore - if one is to look closely at the Papal throne ( the popes special chair ) they will find Mithraic runes.... funny how the story of Mithra coincides so closely to the Jesus story... and Christian holidays were placed on Pagan celebratory days.... almost like they were trying to" hijack" believers.... but one could still go to the Christian celebrations and give one's adoration to another.... it's just over time it was forgotten who the holiday was originally for, became all about Christianity...

Asclepius stands for something which was well understood before Christianity, and it was Christianity who pushed Him under the carpet....

Interesting isn't it, that Jesus was the Prophet for the coming Aquarius age, wouldn't you say.... seeing as how that DIRECTLY relates to Water? interesting as well how references to the Waters was removed from Christian texts....

[Sam Albion]

[QUOTE=salishan;266869]

once u get beyond the book's attempt to sound academically systematic
the text has a very simple message
a "story" is not culturally neutral , it warps how a listener sees reality
storytelling has 2 extreme faces
1. myth (a big ideological agenda , hidden within a story)
2. parable (undercutting society's prevailing cultural myth)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

if u "buy-into a story" , what u are often "buying-into"
is the mythic amplification of somebody's sociopolitical agenda
................

Yes! Hurrah! Well done for understanding how things work -- I salute you!

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by BrotherMichaelSky

Do you realize that this was entirely the reason for the 2012 prophesies?

Do you realise that the 2012 prophesies are based on a mis-application of the calendar?

Originally Posted by BrotherMichaelSky

... and Christian holidays were placed on Pagan celebratory days.... almost like they were trying to" hijack" believers...

A common assumption, repeated so often it's assumed to be true, but without absolutely nothing to support it, and a host of reasons to doubt it.

My post to Etu above gives the esoteric reasoning behind the date of Dec 25 in the Christian calendar, with references.

Originally Posted by BrotherMichaelSky

... interesting as well how references to the Waters was removed from Christian texts....

Is that the 'as there's no evidence to support my argument, the evidence must have been removed' argument? Are you a member of the Theosophical Association?

God bless,

Thomas