Philo's guide to decoding the Hebrew Bible

[Minimalist]

Paul went to Damascus as a religious official given authority by the chief priest so seek out a jewish sect in Damascus that was blaspheming the jewish (hebrew) god. A religious crime within the umbrella of jewish orthodoxy. The sect would later be called christians.

And the authority for "Paul" to persecute anyone would come from whom?

The Roman Governor of Syria, (Petronius c 41, Quadratus from c 50-60. would have had something to say about people being 'persecuted' by a crazed fanatic. In fact, for a fair percentage of that time, Judaea was under the rule of its own king which means that anyone sending someone on such a mission to Roman territory would be committing an act of war....which certainly does not seem likely given the characters of either Herod Agrippa I or II.

Add in the nonsense about Aretas ruling Damascus and it is pretty apparent that "Paul" knew nothing about the place.

While it is true that prior to Caligula the Romans interfered little in religion in the area, by the time of Caligula those happy days were over and the Romans were constantly provoking the Jews.

The idea that the Romans would permit such blatant lawlessness in one of their provinces is silly. They were really big on law and order.

[Ishtar]

Monk, I’m glad you brought up hermaneutics - the study of the interpretation of religious texts. Because the intepretation of the teachings of Jesus are not the firm rock to stand on that you think they are. They have often changed over time, to suit the prevailing philosophy and political circumstances.

Shaye Cohen, Professor of Judaic and Religious Studies at Brown University says:

“Scholars have routinely reinvented Jesus or have routinely rediscovered in Jesus what they want to find, be it the rationalist, liberal Christianity of the 19th century, be it apocalyptic miracle workers in the 20th century, be it revolutionaries, be it whatever they’re looking for, scholars have been able to find in Jesus whatever they want to find. Even in our own time, scholars are still doing this ... all our liberal, middle class Protestant scholars will take a vote and say what Jesus should have said, or might have said. And no doubt their votes reflect their own deep-seated, very sincere, very authentic Christian values .... But their product is, of course, bedeviled by the problem that we are unable to have any secure criteria by which to distinguish the real from the mythic, or what we want to be so from what actually was so ....”

There is a whole industry of scholars going to such tortuous lengths in reasoning out their high flown intellectual philosophic concepts - of the level of how many angels are on the head of a pin - in order to make Jesus fit their bill. Yet all this is being derived from a teaching given purportedly to simple, possibly illiterate, fishermen on the shores of Lake Galilee.

As Martin A Larson says in the The Story of Christian Origins:

“While the miracles of Jesus could easily be created and multiplied by the credulity of his followers, [the followers] could never have devised ethical, speculative or soteriologial doctrines, which, in no instance original, presented new combinations of established religious concepts and ethical principles.”

And then add to that the emotional investment (which some of your angry-sounding replies here demonstrate) that these scholars put into Eusebius's version of events being true, and we are long way from Kansas, Toto. So yes - I stand by my views that those within Christianity are the least capable of coming to any kind of objective conclusion about its true meaning and its true origins.

[Ishtar]

The fact that new concepts arose under christiandom, does not negate it being hebrew in origin.

Why do you insist on it being solely Hebrew in origin when the stories weren't written or compiled or even initially promoted by those of the Hebrew race in the land of the Hebrews?

I don't doubt there are some Hebrew elements like the fufillment of the prophecies - but apart from that, the only thing Hebrew about the story of Jesus is that it is about a mythic Hebrew set in a mythic version of the land of the Hebrews.

Otherwise, the underlying philosophy of the Jesus story is universal in character, which is why this


Orpheus Dionysus


... predates the event that this purports to depict ...



... by many hundreds of years.

You can see how carefully the Christians have copied and adapted the logo - no trademarking laws then you see.

The two figures above come under the category of life-death-rebirth deities, and here is a list of some of them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-death-rebirth_deity

* Aboriginal mythology
o Julunggul
o Wawalag

* Akkadian mythology
o Tammuz
o Ishtar

* Arabian mythology
o Phoenix

* Aztec mythology
o Quetzalcoatl
o Xipe Totec

* Canaanite mythology
o Baal

* Celtic mythology
o Cernunnos

* Christian mythology
o Jesus

* Dacian mythology
o Zalmoxis

* Egyptian mythology
o Horus
o Osiris
o Amun
o Amun-Min (Amen-Min)

* Etruscan mythology
o Atunis

* Greek mythology
o Adonis
o Cronus
o Cybele
o Dionysus
o Orpheus
o Persephone

* Hindu mythology
o Trimurti
+ Brahma
+ Vishnu
+ Siva

* Khoikhoi mythology
o Heitsi

* Native American mythology
o Kaknu

* Norse mythology
o Odin
o Balder
o Gullveig

* Phrygian mythology
o Attis

* Religion in ancient Rome
o Mithras
o Aeneas
o Bacchus
o Proserpina

* Slavic mythology
o Veles
o Jarilo

* Sumerian mythology
o Damuzi
o Inanna

So you can see that the fundamentals of the Jesus story- the death and and the resurrection that is at the heart of the Christian faith - are not unique, nor even Hebrew, no matter how you bend the hermaneutical principles.

[seeker]

You are misleading. Its not a haphazard choice or designed to suit the moment. It is based on hermaneutical principles.

When you consider that hermanuetical principles have led to such diverse readings that Catholicism, Preterism, Christian Identity, Protestentism et al arise from applying the principle of the exact same text and that many Christian sects are mutually exclusive clearly the hermanuetical method reveals itself to be greatly flawed. The problem is that such close study of text encourages the twisting of meanings.

So you would say, non-adherents have better perspective of taoism than a taoist priest or Tibetan Buddhism than the Dalai Lama, or better perspective of the Catholic doctrine than the pope. That's a bit arrogant, and disrespectful in my opinion, not to mention virtually impossible.

Not impossible at all and not disrespectful. The fact is that people in their religions rarely study outside of those disciplines. Do you think the Pope knows anything about the relationship between ancient Ugarit religious practices and Judaism or that the Dalai Lama knows much about the Vedic traditions?

These statements illustrate a lack of understanding about what the role of god's law was and of faith. Religious jews and christians alike are free to question; it does constitute lack of faith. Perhaps you have spent too much time dealing with rigidly, dogmatic, fundamentalists who hold such views? Although. I doubt even the most stalwart fundamentalist never questions God.

I notice you didn't address the fact that the Gospels have Jesus saying that faith alone is not enough, I guess that means you think Paul trumps Jesus. Only you know if you are truly willing to question your own faith. I have indeed dealt with fundies who cannot do so but I've also dealt with otherwise reasonable people who are unable to even discuss such matters.

The fact that new concepts arose under christiandom, does not negate it being hebrew in origin. There are many such concepts most of which are centered around the concept of the messiah as Lamb of God. The entire justification for the christian concept of messiah is found in the OT. I guess as pattylt has corrected me, the jews apparantly had a different interpretation, and did not recognize their fiillment in the life of Jesus. The interpretation of these scriptures and other doctrines have also been defined by revelation to the disciples and have become essential truths to christians.

The Christian concept of the Messiah is not in the OT, it is completely different from the Jewish concept just as the concept of original sin never existed to them. What you seem to be saying is that when God dictated the law to Moses he left Moses with a flawed understanding of his word.

[Minimalist]

Nice list, Ish!

[Ishtar]

Thanks Min, but it’s a straight lift from Wiki. I recognise most of them, although there’s a few I didn't know about, like the Australian Aborigine one.

The ones I’m most familiar with are those that are Celtic, Norse, Asian, Mesopotamian and Mediterranean in origin, and there's a few that Wiki's missed out.

But it’s important to note that many of them were not merely ‘dying and resurrecting godmen’, although that is usually the crux (no pun intended) of the stories.

They also resemble the Jesus myth in many other ways.

Let’s take Attis from Phrygia – the Phyrgians being one of the oldest races of Asia Minor.

Here are the keys events in the life of Attis:

1. Born on December 25 to the Virgin Nana.
2. He was both the Divine Son and the Father.
3. His priests were “eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven”
4. His body as bread was eaten by his worshippers.
5. On “Black Friday”, he was crucified on a tree from which his holy blood ran down to redeem the earth.
6. He descended into the underworld.
7. After three days, Attis was resurrected on March 25th as the “Most High God.”

Then there’s Osiris/Dionysus.

Dionysus is the Greek remake of the Egyptian god Osiris, and he was worshipped as Osiris/Dionysus on the shores of the Mediterranean around 500 BC which is attested to by Herodotus.

1. Dionysus was born of a virgin on December 25 and, as the Holy Child, was placed in a manger.
2. He was a travelling teacher who performed miracles.
3. He once rode in a triumphal procession on an ass.
4. He was a sacred king killed and eaten in an eucharistic ritual.
5. He turned water into wine.
6. He was called King of Kings and God of Gods.
7. He was also known as: Only Begotten Son, Saviour, Redeemer, Sin Bearer, Anointed One and the Alpha and Omega.
8. He was identified with the Ram and the Lamb.
9. His sacrificial title of Dendrites or Young Man of the Tree intimates that he was hung on a tree or crucified.
10. Dionysus rose from the dead on March 25.

So from just these two examples alone, we can see that Jesus story is not unique and also that he was not the first 'anointed one'.

[seeker]

I read an interesting discussion of 'magi' the other day. Apparently they used to draw crowds and impress folks with little bit of sleight of hand and feats of prestidigitation. At the end of the Achemaenid period there would have been a lot of these 'miracle workers' wandering around. With the Greek suppression of all things Persian this means a lot of miracle working priests with no religion to preach and a theology full of dualism, angels, demons, eschatology, souls and a savior in the Christian sense.

[Ishtar]

I read an interesting discussion of 'magi' the other day. Apparently they used to draw crowds and impress folks with little bit of sleight of hand and feats of prestidigitation. At the end of the Achemaenid period there would have been a lot of these 'miracle workers' wandering around. With the Greek suppression of all things Persian this means a lot of miracle working priests with no religion to preach and a theology full of dualism, angels, demons, eschatology, souls and a savior in the Christian sense.

I take your point and that would explain the diffusion of this story throughout the Middle East at that time- but the story is much older, for instance the Sumerian Inanna story is c 3,000 BC - and also, how did it get to Ireland, South America, Norway and Australia? Oh no....
I know what's coming next .....OK, no-one is allowed to say 'boats'.

[Minimalist]

So from just these two examples alone, we can see that Jesus story is not unique and also that he was not the first 'anointed one'.

I know, but the christians go batshit crazy denouncing the earlier pagan mythologies as being "lies"' developed after the fact. This in spite of the fact that Justin Martyr (one of their own) developed the theory of diabolical mimicry to explain away all those embarrassing references!



There's one fellow over at Internet Infidels who can work himself into a lather explaining that "there are NO textual references to such practices" prior to Jesus' time....whenever such time may have been.
He's a little slower to admit that book-burning christian thugs made it a point to burn down the libraries which had a detrimental effect on much ancient literature.

[seeker]

I take your point and that would explain the diffusion of this story throughout the Middle East at that time- but the story is much older, for instance the Sumerian Inanna story is c 3,000 BC - and also, how did it get to Ireland, South America, Norway and Australia? Oh no....
I know what's coming next .....OK, no-one is allowed to say 'boats'.

Boats (quick run)



I was really just commenting on Gnosticism and its spread.

I think the dying godman story is a natural outgrowth of Solar worship. Seasonal cycles are especially important for early agrarian societies. A bad crop can mean famine. It would have been completely natural for people to see winter as a time when the sun is dying and spring as a time when the sun is reborn, in fact when life is renewed.

[Ishtar]

I think the dying godman story is a natural outgrowth of Solar worship. Seasonal cycles are especially important for early agrarian societies. A bad crop can mean famine. It would have been completely natural for people to see winter as a time when the sun is dying and spring as a time when the sun is reborn, in fact when life is renewed.

I know that agricultural cycles is often given as the reasons for these myths - with Persephone being held captive in the Underworld for six months of the year being an allegory for winter, and so on.

I think there's more to it than that.....the Vedic shamans believed that, at certain times of the year, the liminal walls between the dimensions were thinner and that those were the best times to commune with the gods/spirits. It can't be a coincidence that one of these special times was the Spring Equinox, the date that all self respecting pagan godmen die on and resurrect three days later on 25 March.

[Ishtar]

There's one fellow over at Internet Infidels who can work himself into a lather explaining that "there are NO textual references to such practices" prior to Jesus' time....whenever such time may have been.

Min

You can tell this fellow at Infidels that Dionysus/Bacchus was attested to by Herodotus in 500 BCE. You can also say that he was a “prototype of Christ with a cult centre at Jerusalem during the 1st century BCE where he was worshipped by the Jews”, according to Barbara Walker and J M Roberts.

The Dionysus/Bacchus symbol was IHS or IES ... not a million miles from “Iesus” or “Jesus”. The IHS is used to this day in Catholic liturgy and iconography:

IES, the Phoenician name of the god Bacchus or the Sun personfied; the etymological meaning of the title being “I” the one and “ES” the fire or light; or taken as one word ‘ies’, the one light. This is none other than the light of St John’s gospel; and the name is to be found everywhere on Christian altars, both Protestant and Catholic, thus clearly showing that the Christian religion is but a modification of Oriental Sun Worship, attributed to Zoroaster. The same letters IHS, which are in the Greek text, are read by Christians JES, and the Roman Catholic priesthood added the ‘us’, to make Jesus.

From Antiquity Unveiled by J M Roberts.

Seeker, I know you’ll be happy about that reference to Zoroastrian sun worship and I agree with it .. but I don’t think it is only and simply that.

Given that the sun is a ball of fire, I think that any reference to sun and light together means the fire of the second Mystery initiation, as in the John the Baptist quote, "I've just come to baptise with water but there is one coming who is greater than me that will baptise with fire."

[seeker]

Min - If you are talking about the guy at Internet Infidels that I'm thinking of he's not very impressive. Rather than try to refute arguments he tries to present himself as the one that has to be disproved, regardless of the fact that he is the one claiming a historical Jesus and a conventional timeline. I read a couple of his 'discussions' they wee pretty pitiful.

[seeker]

Ish - Darius is the one who pushes Mithra out as the most important figure (other than Ahura Mazda of course) and creates this notion that Mithra is the one who confers khvarnah (an important attribute of kingship). Before Darius khvarnah is more difficult to get, one legend has it only conferred by Ahura Mazda, another by Aram Napat. Anyway the root of khvarnah is khvar which means sun in old Persian, the word Darius uses to indicate that he has recieved this gift from Mithra is chica which is presumed to mean radience. Thus Darius assumes kingship by receiving the radiance of the sun from Mithra, the sun God. Does any of this sound familiar?

[Minimalist]

It's Roger Pearse.

He did this whole long thing about the Testimonium Flavianum one time (which, to be fair, I actually read from start to finish) to show that every other christian writer who failed to mention the TF was talking about something which did not require the TF at all.

The problem was that he just as convincingly proved that the reason they did not mention it was that it was not there.... and when it came to Origen his reasoning was really shaky. Had the TF been there when Origen was attributing to Josephus that Jerusalem was destroyed because of "James the Just" rather than killing "Jesus" it would certainly have played into his theme. Of course, Josephus says no such thing and in War of the Jews points to the destruction of the temple as god being pissed because the zealots were murdering people within the temple precincts.

Origen never mentions that.....and neither does Roger.