Archaeologica.org

Minimalist wrote:

which means Yaweh saves, a perfect name for a savior.

Or a goalie.

[/img]

Oh please no. You mean all of this was because of a bad hockey draft?

Hockey is not big in Hispanic countries.

Few players are named "Jesus."

rich wrote:I agree that the gnostic schools derived from Zoroastrianism, but without knowing what the original (if any) OT might have said there's no real way of knowing. And as far as I can see, the demiurge part "seems" to me anyways to be a major part of the gnostic teachings of a "higher" knowledge. I agree I could be wrong, but I just don't see where the gnostics at the time wouldn't have used the demiurge part and related it to Yahweh - that is why I don't see the gnostics at that time using "Jesus" as the savior.
Just my opinion tho.

I think you are tending to look at the stories and forgetting the points of view. For us the notion of a good god and one that urges dashing the heads of babies against rocks don't go together but that tale, probably coming from the Persian conquest of the former Israel, seemed like it portrayed righteousness. That is really a matter of moral relativism (funny how theists practice this all the time then pretend its a secular habit) and the notion that war justifies anything.

Gnostics weren't all that concerned with the name of the savior. Many of them were members of several different mysteries. Exclusivity was really more of a Christian invention. For Gnostics the various saviors weren't really all that different from each other, it was the spiritual journey that was important.

Minimalist wrote:Hockey is not big in Hispanic countries.

Few players are named "Jesus."

Soccer is though

The Jews always used the name 'Yahweh rescues' for their mythic heroes - Joseph, Joshua - so with Jesus they were just continuing that tradition.

Justin Martyr (100 CE), in Chapter 113 of his Dialogue with Trypho entitled 'Joshua was a Figure of Christ' uses the example of Joshua to try to convince Trypho that that the Hebrews had their Jesus too. He explains that the Christian Jesus will lead his people to the Promised Land just as the Jesus of Exodus leads his people to the Promised Land.

But looking to attest Gnostics to the first century may be a red herring anyway - there is no proof that Jesus existed beween 1 and 32 CE or even existed at all.

To divide history into two parts (AD/BC) is an artificial construct anyway, with no basis in historical fact. It was a method of dating devised around 500 CE by a monk who just postulated when he thought the the birth of Jesus would have been.

So if learn to start thinking of time as one long river, instead of one with a dam in it - and we change the word Gnostics to Mystery cults (as the word 'Gnostics' was not known then, but most Gnostic teachings were based on the Mysteries) then one can easily see how the Literalists probably grew out of the Mystery cults in the early second century, and many of these Mystery cults we have come to call Gnostics.

seeker wrote:I agree that the gnostic schools derived from Zoroastrianism

I would tend to the view that much of the OT is derived from Zoroastrianism/Sumerian and some Canaanite stories thrown in. Yahweh after all was originally a Canaanite god, and Daniel is a Canaanite story. These influences obviously fed through into the NT - but I have come to the view that the NT mysticism was primarily Greek/Egyptian or Mediterranean, for instance, the central motif of the dying and resurrecting godman doesn't exist in Zoroastrianism....does it? (Please correct me if I'm wrong, Seeker)

Gnostics weren't all that concerned with the name of the savior. Many of them were members of several different mysteries. Exclusivity was really more of a Christian invention. For Gnostics the various saviors weren't really all that different from each other, it was the spiritual journey that was important.

Couldn't agree more.

Here's another interesting way into the problem.

John the Baptist and Joshua (Jesus ben Nun) of the Exodus story:

We know that John the Baptist existed because Josephus mentions him in his Antiquities, where also tells us that John was killed by Herod Agrippa because Herod felt threatened by John the Baptist's popularity, and worried that he could bring about a Jewish uprising. So Herod has him executed. That is all attested by Josephus.

John the Baptist is thought to have been an Essene - another Gnostic/Mystery group of the time that was based in Judaea near the place were the mythical Joshua is said crossed the Jordan in the Exodus story. Josephus also attests to the existence of the Essenes.

Joshua, the Jesus of Exodus, was the mythic hero of the Essenes. From the Essenes' Damascus Document, we know that they taught that Joshua had had hidden secret teachings, and that only those who were worthy could discover them at the appropriate time.

They developed a contemporary mythic Christ figure called "The Teacher of Righteousness" who according to Hoeller, they regarded as a latter day Joshua and his teachings as the "Second Torah."

So this is likely who John the Baptist meant when he said that he could only baptise with water (first initiation) but that someone greater was coming that would baptise with fire (second initiation).

However, there is no evidence for any Jesus Christ figure, much less that he was baptised by John the Baptist. On the other hand, for a mythical Jesus Christ to have gained acceptance and legitimacy as the second Jesus of the Exodus, a story of him being endorsed and baptised by the popular John the Baptist would have definitely helped.

We know that John the Baptist existed because Josephus mentions him in his Antiquities, where also tells us that John was killed by Herod Agrippa because Herod felt threatened by John the Baptist's popularity, and worried that he could bring about a Jewish uprising. So Herod has him executed. That is all attested by Josephus.

True, Ish, but xtians have a lot of problem with the date. That annoying "history" keeps getting in the way of their fairy tales. I guess for that reason they don't harp on this one.

Yes, but that needn't stop us harping up on about it!

Joshua, the Jesus of Exodus,

Just as phony as the conquest and the exodus though.

Minimalist wrote:

Joshua, the Jesus of Exodus,

Just as phony as the conquest and the exodus though.

The whole point is, Min, it's all phoney - or mythical, which is another way of saying phoney, but with a deeper allegorical meaning.

Granted but no religion says to its followers: "Look, we are totally full of shit. We pray to a rock. But do what we say and give us money anyway."

At some level they had to believe it was true otherwise what power does it have?

Minimalist wrote:Granted but no religion says to its followers: "Look, we are totally full of shit. We pray to a rock. But do what we say and give us money anyway."

At some level they had to believe it was true otherwise what power does it have?

No, no religion says that - and neither did the Mystery/Gnostic religions, so I don't follow you.

There are deeper truths than the material - than whether someone actually lived and preached in a certain way.

That's why my signature used to read: "The only difference between history amd mythology is that mythology is true."

I'm sure they believed it.

It was a time of boundless credulity....just like now in Alabama.