Does Paul Rub You the Wrong Way

[socharlie]

Your reply is a great example of predestitionation. I just don't see what it has to with problems with Paul?

Predestination, no, I do not see it that way at all.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Predestination, no, I do not see it that way at all.

Another time on that.

What I'm really interested in what that post on Colossians has to do with Paul rubbing you the wrong way. That's the topic of the op.

 

[socharlie]

Another time on that.

What I'm really interested in what that post on Colossians has to do with Paul rubbing you the wrong way. That's the topic of the op.

That is what I tried to explain - there is nothing, really nothing that's to run you wrong way if get into what really meant in the letter. Any specific point in the letter that you had in mind?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

That is what I tried to explain - there is nothing, really nothing that's to run you wrong way if get into what really meant in the letter. Any specific point in the letter that you had in mind?

No.

A curious observation is that no one had impugned the theology of his teachings. Mostly the objections come on historical grounds.

 

[socharlie]

No.

A curious observation is that no one had impugned the theology of his teachings. Mostly the objections come on historical grounds.

I explain the difference between pneumatic and psychic. The word of Christ and Paul was pneumatic as a teacher of psychic. Then psychic element took over Christianity and Christianity stopped being Spiritual. Except a few individuals. This why modern Church has very little understanding of proto- Valentinian Paul. They just do not know and being psychic Church would not be very happy to know the truth, but it all there in the letters that translators - interpreters are trying to explain.

 

[fallingblood]

Christianity is retro unfortunately going back to ancient mythology, and Roman/Hellenist mythology, including as a basis for the Trinity, and in the Roman Church the role of Mary.

The basis for the Trinity is in Jewish thought. In 1st century Judaism, you had a binitarian view of God. Daniel Boyarin probably goes the most in depth about this idea, but its easily shown. Throughout the Hebrew text, there are mentions of the Spirit of God or the Wisdom of God. All that Christianity did was take that Jewish binitarian view and added Jesus to it, making it trinitarian instead.

As for the role of Mary, it has nothing to do with Roman/Hellenist mythology. She is not divine in anyway. She holds a special place, as she is the mother of Jesus, but she isn't anything more.

Actually Pharisaic/Rabbinic Judaism is a sect that existed since Babylon; that Yeshua came to remove, as they no longer accepted the God Most High, and that there is a Council of Elders...

Its actually quite possible that Jesus was a Pharisee himself. And the early movement, right after the death of Jesus, did not seem to have a problem with the Pharisees. Paul himself was a Pharisee, and that was never used to attack him. It wasn't something he was shamed about, or anything.

The Council of Elders would have been more of a Sadducee thing. And there is no evidence that Pharisee rejected the God Most High. In fact, looking at the writings were do have of the Pharisees, and they are very scant, the opposite is seen to be true.

The Divine Council as you're quoting from is polytheism/henotheism; what was taught in the Biblical texts is similar to what Krishna is stating, one God Most High, and then Elohim/Avatars that created reality (Oneness).

The Divine Council wasn't really taught in Biblical texts. It does appear in Biblical texts, but more of a throwback to an earlier time. The idea only appears in the oldest sections, and was largely abandoned early on in the development of Judaism. It is not seen in either the First Temple or Second Temple periods within Judaism.

And the little that is known about the Divine Council is nothing like what Krishna is stating. The Divine Council would have been a number of gods who oversaw different things. It is classical polytheism.

Modern Judaism is more like the Canaanites, as they no longer realize that YHVH is not a name; yet means the 'Lord to Be', and they no longer recognize the God Most High as the Source of reality.

This comment makes me believe you don't know anything about modern Judaism. Modern Judaism is nothing like the Canaanites. Not to mention, what we know about the Canaanites is scant anyway.

 

[wizanda]

Its actually quite possible that Jesus was a Pharisee himself.

Yeshua's statements could also fit in with the Essenes, and though he would have known the traditions of the various sects, his knowledge goes beyond them in many ways.

Modern Judaism is nothing like the Canaanites.

Modern Judaism seems to make a point of the name's importance... Canaanites also placed emphasis on one of the pantheon; which is a form of henotheism....

Whereas the Bible its self in the Time of Moses, David, Isaiah (which are key contributors to everyone's belief), all seem to differentiate a God Most High (El Elyon) and the arch angels (Elohim) that made reality.

This comment makes me believe you don't know anything about modern Judaism.

Sorry it was a silly comment, as there was too much additional data not relayed...

Zechariah 14, where the final judgement happens, the Curse is removed, God's name is One, because no longer shall there be Canaanite in the land...

The God Most High has no names, as it is everything; thus the names we see used about Elohim in the past, were all place holders for symbolic aspects of the Divine.

Thus i get what they follow, what the text states, and where it is limited.

In my opinion.

 

[shunyadragon]

The basis for the Trinity is in Jewish thought. In 1st century Judaism, you had a binitarian view of God. Daniel Boyarin probably goes the most in depth about this idea, but its easily shown. Throughout the Hebrew text, there are mentions of the Spirit of God or the Wisdom of God. All that Christianity did was take that Jewish binitarian view and added Jesus to it, making it trinitarian instead.

I strongly disagree that Judaism at the time of Jesus Christ, and at least since ~800-600 BCE Judaism was anything more than monotheistic, There is no concept of a binary God, nor an incarnate Son of God in Judaism the Spirit of God and the Wisdom of God is God nothing more and nothing less.

There are absolutely basis in Judaism at the time nor later that describes this as a binary concept of God. Daniel Boyarin, who I disagree with as Peter Schäfer ( Peter Schäfer slams Daniel Boyarin–scholarly brawl) strongly disagrees with him as i do. A significant part of the problem is Boyarin appeals to the Canaanite descriptions of God to justify his case, and this is unacceptable.

.

As for the role of Mary, it has nothing to do with Roman/Hellenist mythology. She is not divine in anyway. She holds a special place, as she is the mother of Jesus, but she isn't anything more.

She is a great deal more, and here statues and pictures including the symbolism present are carbon copies of those of Roman Goddesses. Being Mother of God, Queen of Heaven, and born without sin clearly puts her as a Goddess above all accept the three persons of the Trinity,

The Council of Elders would have been more of a Sadducee thing. And there is no evidence that Pharisee rejected the God Most High. In fact, looking at the writings were do have of the Pharisees, and they are very scant, the opposite is seen to be true.

The Divine Council wasn't really taught in Biblical texts. It does appear in Biblical texts, but more of a throwback to an earlier time. The idea only appears in the oldest sections, and was largely abandoned early on in the development of Judaism. It is not seen in either the First Temple or Second Temple periods within Judaism.

The Council of Elders remains a Ugarit/Canaanite pantheon of Gods directly from cuneiform tablets.

And the little that is known about the Divine Council is nothing like what Krishna is stating. The Divine Council would have been a number of gods who oversaw different things. It is classical polytheism.
This comment makes me believe you don't know anything about modern Judaism. Modern Judaism is nothing like the Canaanites. Not to mention, what we know about the Canaanites is scant anyway.

Based on your view and comments you like most Christians manipulate the Old Testament to justify the Trinity and in incarnate God, which is as far from Judaism as aliens.

We know a great deal about the Canaanites through libraries of cuneiform tablets that match up well with the Pentateuch. Contemporary Judaism in no way accepts anything like the binary, nor trinitarian concept, and absolutely no such thing as an incarnate God.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Your answer was rebutted though. Your connection doesn’t work as I explained. Especially since Tarsus wasn’t the capital of the area until after Mithraism was stamped out of there.

"In 67 BC, Pompey, after crushing the Cilician pirates, subjected Tarsus to Rome, and it became capital of the Roman province of Cilicia.[6]'--Wikipedia.
All indicating that the Cilician pirates with their Mithraism were established there prior to that.

It's not for nothing that the three wise men were Magi, magicians in the eastern precursor of Mithraism, Zoroastrianism.

Of course when Roman Christianity took hold, they had to disentangle it from it's (Pauline) Mithraic origins. So since they couldn't deny Mithraism and it's many near identical aspects with Paul's Christianity, they merely declared it to have come later and copied Christianity. It's also important to note the many differences of it with Judaism, especially the symbolic cannibalistic Mithraic rite of the Lord's Supper, which is blasphemy to Jews. Those differences were what caused the split between Paul and James.

Paul's term, the "Lord's Supper", had heavy mystical (read Mitharaic) connotations which were an embarrassment to the early church fathers, so the terms Communion and especially "Eucharist" (from the Didache with it's early apostolic Jewish connotations), came into use. Also, the Didache doesn't use the blood and body symbology Paul adopted from the Mithraic rite.

 

[Augustus]

She is a great deal more, and here statues and pictures including the symbolism present are carbon copies of those of Roman Goddesses.

One thing to consider is that they were made by the same people. As such, we wouldn't necessarily expect to see radically different styles and iconography.

Craftsmen and artists would use the skills and abilities they already had and over time these would be imitated by later craftsmen and artists.

While this this not sufficient as an argument against specific religious influence, even if there was no influence whatsoever I would expect such similarities to exist purely because it reflected the artistic styles of the time.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

As for the role of Mary, it has nothing to do with Roman/Hellenist mythology. She is not divine in anyway. She holds a special place, as she is the mother of Jesus, but she isn't anything more.

Mary is quite a bit more. She is part of the royal link back to David. She is also part of the Biblical eugenics project which preserved the bloodlines that fulfilled prophesies going back the Garden.

 

[shunyadragon]

One thing to consider is that they were made by the same people. As such, we wouldn't necessarily expect to see radically different styles and iconography.

Craftsmen and artists would use the skills and abilities they already had and over time these would be imitated by later craftsmen and artists.

While this this not sufficient as an argument against specific religious influence, even if there was no influence whatsoever I would expect such similarities to exist purely because it reflected the artistic styles of the time.

There is a great deal of diversity even within a cultural artistic style, which negates your reasoning. They are not just similar but exactly the same including the symbols that are included, and the reference for the figures, especially among women.

 

[Augustus]

There is a great deal of diversity even within a cultural artistic style, which negates your reasoning. They are not just similar but exactly the same including the symbols that are included, and the reference for the figures, especially among women.

Have you got any examples?

 

[fallingblood]

I strongly disagree that Judaism at the time of Jesus Christ, and at least since ~800-600 BCE Judaism was anything more than monotheistic, There is no concept of a binary God, nor an incarnate Son of God in Judaism the Spirit of God and the Wisdom of God is God nothing more and nothing less.

I'm not saying that Judaism had a binary concept, or an incarnate Son of God. I'm saying that they had a binitarian view, which is seen in the idea of the Spirit of God and the Wisdom of God. The trinitarian view of God was something that evolved quite a bit, but had a foundation in that bintarian view. John helps this by using the term logos, which goes back to Philo of Alexandria. Paul helps this out by using terminology related to the Spirit of God in regards to Jesus. For later Christians, the similarities were there, and they expanded.

All they did was take a God that already was shown in different roles (as wisdom or the spirit), and changed it a bit to add one extra role. One God, but with multiple roles.

There are absolutely basis in Judaism at the time nor later that describes this as a binary concept of God. Daniel Boyarin, who I disagree with as Peter Schäfer ( Peter Schäfer slams Daniel Boyarin–scholarly brawl) strongly disagrees with him as i do. A significant part of the problem is Boyarin appeals to the Canaanite descriptions of God to justify his case, and this is unacceptable.

There are biases, for sure. However, the link you provided basically agrees that there was a binitarian view in Judaism, and that it even lived into Rabbinic Judaism. And Boyarin doesn't appeal to Canaanite descriptions of God to justify his case that a binitarian view existed, but that a duality existed. Its also a point that the two seemed to agree on, but what level that was an influence was debated. So I'm not sure what the argument here is.

She is a great deal more, and here statues and pictures including the symbolism present are carbon copies of those of Roman Goddesses. Being Mother of God, Queen of Heaven, and born without sin clearly puts her as a Goddess above all accept the three persons of the Trinity,

She's not divine. She had a special birth, but so did many other figures within Judaism. That isn't special. Yes, later artists used modern art to influence the manner in which Mary is depicted, but that is true with all religious figures and historical figures in general. That's art, it doesn't necessarily reflect religious ideas.

She's has a special place, being the mother of Jesus, but she was still human, not divine. Its the same way that Moses has a special place.

Based on your view and comments you like most Christians manipulate the Old Testament to justify the Trinity and in incarnate God, which is as far from Judaism as aliens.

I don't subscribe to the Trinity idea. I'm also Jewish, even though I'm really practicing anymore. So your view of me simply is incorrect.
[quote
We know a great deal about the Canaanites through libraries of cuneiform tablets that match up well with the Pentateuch. Contemporary Judaism in no way accepts anything like the binary, nor trinitarian concept, and absolutely no such thing as an incarnate God.[/QUOTE]Didn't say it did. I didn't say anything about Judaism having an idea of an incarnate God, or a binary view. I mentioned that in the first century, there was a binitarian view, that saw different roles of God. And that that view was adopted by early Christians (who were Jews) and eventually evolved into the Trinitarian idea.

"In 67 BC, Pompey, after crushing the Cilician pirates, subjected Tarsus to Rome, and it became capital of the Roman province of Cilicia.[6]'--Wikipedia.
All indicating that the Cilician pirates with their Mithraism were established there prior to that.

So problems here. In 67 B.C.E. Pompey crushed the Cilician pirates. He wiped them out of the area, and with them, the worship of Mithraism also disappeared. Wikipedia, your source, confirms this. Your source also suggests that this worship of Mithra may not be the same as later Roman Mithraism, which they state sprouted up in the Roman empire in the late first century. Looking at the dates, it was after Paul died.

There is no evidence that the worship of Mithraism went further than the Cilician pirates, and there is no evidence that after the pirates, it continued. So to link it at all with Tarsus, which only became the capitol of Cilicia after the Cilician pirates were crushed, simply is ridiculous.
[quote]
It's not for nothing that the three wise men were Magi, magicians in the eastern precursor of Mithraism, Zoroastrianism.[/quote] There are multiple things wrong here. First, the of the magi was most likely made up. It simply makes little historical sense, and the events surrounding it are completely false. The astronomical event that supposedly led them to Jesus was impossible to begin with, and there was no massacre of the innocents later on.

Second, there is no reason to believe that the magi can from Iran, or had anything to do with Zoroastrianism. That view was a later idea that sprouted up because of the Greek term. Which really is neither here nor there. The earliest view was that the magi came from Arabia. It is also now the view that is beginning to become dominant once again.

Either way, there is no suggestion that they brought Zoroastrianism to Palestine. At least there is no evidence for it being practiced in Palestine during that time period.

Of course when Roman Christianity took hold, they had to disentangle it from it's (Pauline) Mithraic origins. So since they couldn't deny Mithraism and it's many near identical aspects with Paul's Christianity, they merely declared it to have come later and copied Christianity. It's also important to note the many differences of it with Judaism, especially the symbolic cannibalistic Mithraic rite of the Lord's Supper, which is blasphemy to Jews. Those differences were what caused the split between Paul and James.

One, we know little about Mithraism. It was a mystery religion after all. Second, the best we can see, which your Wikipedia source agrees on, is that the religion only began in the Roman Empire in the late 1st century. This was after Jesus, after the original movement, and after Paul. So your timeline simply doesn't work. More so, Christians didn't spend much time (and only later on) caring out Mithraism.

As for the Lord's Supper, nothing to do with cannibalism. Its a Passover meal. Quite traditional in that manner. In order for your argument to work, you basically have to rewrite history.

Paul's term, the "Lord's Supper", had heavy mystical (read Mitharaic) connotations which were an embarrassment to the early church fathers, so the terms Communion and especially "Eucharist" (from the Didache with it's early apostolic Jewish connotations), came into use. Also, the Didache doesn't use the blood and body symbology Paul adopted from the Mithraic rite.

Not really. The Lord's Supper was used among the early church fathers. It was used among the early follower of Jesus. It wasn't an embarrassment. More so, we are told that Paul adopts the Lord's Supper from the earlier movement. He didn't create it. The whole symbology that he uses isn't something he made. It is something he is clear that he received. As in, he's just passing it on.

Mary is quite a bit more. She is part of the royal link back to David. She is also part of the Biblical eugenics project which preserved the bloodlines that fulfilled prophesies going back the Garden.

The Bible doesn't list her bloodline though. Her bloodline didn't matter at all to those writing the gospels, or later works. So she's not a link with anything, except with Judaism in general.

 

[wizanda]

Contemporary Judaism in no way accepts anything like the binary, nor trinitarian concept, and absolutely no such thing as an incarnate God.

Contemporary Judaism has been given alternate texts to look at; the Tanakh relays multiple visitations, and that YHVH shall become Yeshua (H3444 + H1961 = Exodus 15:2-3, Psalms 118:14-21, Isaiah 12:2) where we shall physically see this being (H3444 + H7200 = Exodus 14:13, Psalms 98:3, Isaiah 52:10).

In my opinion.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm not saying that Judaism had a binary concept, or an incarnate Son of God. I'm saying that they had a binitarian view, which is seen in the idea of the Spirit of God and the Wisdom of God. The trinitarian view of God was something that evolved quite a bit, but had a foundation in that bintarian view. John helps this by using the term logos, which goes back to Philo of Alexandria. Paul helps this out by using terminology related to the Spirit of God in regards to Jesus. For later Christians, the similarities were there, and they expanded.

Claiming a foundation for binarianism, is a stretch beyond the evidence. Relying on selective vague references to the Spirit of God or the Wisdom of God, and Logos does not remotely infer any type of binarianism that would meaningfully lead to a Trinity, which is not remotely related to concept of monotheism in Judaism.

All they did was take a God that already was shown in different roles (as wisdom or the spirit), and changed it a bit to add one extra role. One God, but with multiple roles.

All they did?!?!!? What they did was stretch vague Old Testament citations to the concept of an incarnate God, and Tritheism of Christianity.

There are biases, for sure. However, the link you provided basically agrees that there was a binitarian view in Judaism, and that it even lived into Rabbinic Judaism.

NO, it does not

And Boyarin doesn't appeal to Canaanite descriptions of God to justify his case that a binitarian view existed, but that a duality existed.

Yes he does . . .

From: Peter Schäfer slams Daniel Boyarin–scholarly brawl

"Boyarin also invokes the Canaanite gods El and Ba‘al, the former being the ancient sky god and the latter his younger associate, whom the Bible tried—not always successfully—to merge into one God in order to accomplish its idea of a strict monotheism. The notion of a duality within God, he argues, is present in the Hebrew Bible itself. Fair enough—nobody would want to disagree with him here: that duality was a condition that the Bible sought not to affirm but to overcome. Yet with such a broad perspective on origins, almost anything that later emerges in Christianity could be traced back to the Hebrew Bible."

She's not divine. She had a special birth, but so did many other figures within Judaism.

False, Many?!? Where and who?!?! Only Adam and Eve Created, and Jesus are born without sin.

That isn't special. Yes, later artists used modern art to influence the manner in which Mary is depicted, but that is true with all religious figures and historical figures in general. That's art, it doesn't necessarily reflect religious ideas.

She's has a special place, being the mother of Jesus, but she was still human, not divine. Its the same way that Moses has a special place.

False, Moses was not born without sin, nor does he have anything close to the roles of the Mother of God, nor the Queen of Heaven.

I don't subscribe to the Trinity idea. I'm also Jewish, even though I'm really practicing anymore. So your view of me simply is incorrect.

Than what are you doing arguing for the Trinity and an incarnate God, and a rather confused binarian view of God?

We know a great deal about the Canaanites through libraries of cuneiform tablets that match up well with the Pentateuch.

Contemporary Judaism in no way accepts anything like the binary, nor trinitarian concept, and absolutely no such thing as an incarnate God.

Didn't say it did. I didn't say anything about Judaism having an idea of an incarnate God, or a binary view. I mentioned that in the first century, there was a binitarian view, that saw different roles of God. And that that view was adopted by early Christians (who were Jews) and eventually evolved into the Trinitarian idea.

The statement that 'there was a binarian view, that saw different roles of God,' is too vague to real. The belief in different roles of God is in Judaism throughout its history.

So problems here. In 67 B.C.E. Pompey crushed the Cilician pirates. He wiped them out of the area, and with them, the worship of Mithraism also disappeared. Wikipedia, your source, confirms this. Your source also suggests that this worship of Mithra may not be the same as later Roman Mithraism, which they state sprouted up in the Roman empire in the late first century. Looking at the dates, it was after Paul died.

This is incomplete concerning the history of Mithraism. Considering it was wide spread throughout Rome in this period of Roman history the evidence indicated it morphed and changed over time and was later absorbed into Christianity, as were the Roman religions related to the Goddesses that morphed into Mary.

 

[fallingblood]

Claiming a foundation for binarianism, is a stretch beyond the evidence. Relying on selective vague references to the Spirit of God or the Wisdom of God, and Logos does not remotely infer any type of binarianism that would meaningfully lead to a Trinity, which is not remotely related to concept of monotheism in Judaism.

The Trinity is a monotheistic idea as well. Its three roles of one God. I guess one could call it a monistic view, the idea that there is one God who comes in different forms. Either way, basically the same thing.

The idea that 1st century Judaism had an idea of a binitarian God really isn't debated in the literature. The fact that we have people like Philo speaking of God as the logos, really solidifies that. Its two roles, but one God. The fact that early Christians took that same terminology, and incorporated Jesus into a binitarian view (eventually making a trinitarian view) really is all the evidence one needs.

This isn't selective vague references. Stating that Philo, who really either creates the logos idea or at least runs with it, is then copied by John, isn't vague. John uses the same ideas as Philo was. Its a whole binitaran view, John simply places Jesus into that view. Stating that Paul uses terminology that is clearly mimicking the terminology that was used in regards to the Spirit of God, or Wisdom of God, but using it to address Jesus, isn't vague. Paul was clearly trying to do something there.

All they did?!?!!? What they did was stretch vague Old Testament citations to the concept of an incarnate God, and Tritheism of Christianity.

The trinitarian view and even incarnate God develops over time. That doesn't mean it doesn't have a foundation in Judaism. Jesus was a Jew. The first followers were Jews. Paul was a Jew. There are many Jewish concepts that are simply transferring over, and then are evolving later on.

NO, it does not

It certainly does. We see it right here "It turns out, for example, that the old binitarian idea of two divine figures, presaged in Second Temple Judaism and adopted by the New Testament, lived on in certain circles in rabbinic Judaism, despite its ever more sophisticated formulation in Christian theology with its climax in the doctrine of Trinity."

Yes he does . . .

From: Peter Schäfer slams Daniel Boyarin–scholarly brawl

"Boyarin also invokes the Canaanite gods El and Ba‘al, the former being the ancient sky god and the latter his younger associate, whom the Bible tried—not always successfully—to merge into one God in order to accomplish its idea of a strict monotheism. The notion of a duality within God, he argues, is present in the Hebrew Bible itself. Fair enough—nobody would want to disagree with him here: that duality was a condition that the Bible sought not to affirm but to overcome. Yet with such a broad perspective on origins, almost anything that later emerges in Christianity could be traced back to the Hebrew Bible."

This is talking about duality within God. Schafer says no one would disagree with Boyarin on that point. The criticism of Boyarin here is that he is supposedly being too vague.

The statement that 'there was a binarian view, that saw different roles of God,' is too vague to real. The belief in different roles of God is in Judaism throughout its history.

It's not too vague. Its states exactly what I meant, and in context, is quite clear.

This is incomplete concerning the history of Mithraism. Considering it was wide spread throughout Rome in this period of Roman history the evidence indicated it morphed and changed over time and was later absorbed into Christianity, as were the Roman religions related to the Goddesses that morphed into Mary.

I addressed your idea on Mithraism in a different thread. Basically, the things you cited were full of bunk, and did not actually portray Mithraism, the mystery religion of the Roman Empire, accurately.

The problem here is a conflation of different ideas of the figure Mithras. There is the Hindu version. There is a Persian version. And there is the Roman version. The two former versions don't matter here, and besides the name Mitra, and a few astrological tropes, really have nothing to do with each other. One doesn't appear to morph into another.

At that period in time, the late 60's B.C.E., it wasn't widespread in the Roman Empire. Even in the area be spoken of, the province of Cilicia, it was only there before the area became part of the Roman Empire. And that wasn't the mystery religion of Rome, but a Persian version that was very different. That version was wiped out when Rome took over that area.

There is later evidence that portions of the mystery religion were copied from the Christian religion, but not the other way around. Nor is there evidence that the goddesss was morphed into Mary. Neither one of those ideas have a historical background, and only get passed around based on a conflation of different ideas that don't actually relate.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

So problems here. In 67 B.C.E. Pompey crushed the Cilician pirates. He wiped them out of the area, and with them, the worship of Mithraism also disappeared. Wikipedia, your source, confirms this.

Except the part about wiping it out, which is blatant revisionism. "Pompey spared numerous Cilician pirates who had been taken prisoner, realizing that many had been driven to such recourse by desperation. Those who surrendered were settled in various parts of the southern coast of Asia Minor, where the population was sparse."

Your source also suggests that this worship of Mithra may not be the same as later Roman Mithraism, which they state sprouted up in the Roman empire in the late first century. Looking at the dates, it was after Paul died.

Yes, Mithraism spread through the empire later, but Tarsus and southern Anatolia is where it started in the first century BCE. But it's spread throughout the empire is irrelevant because Paul was a native from Tarsus in Cilicia.

There is no evidence that the worship of Mithraism went further than the Cilician pirates, and there is no evidence that after the pirates, it continued. So to link it at all with Tarsus, which only became the capitol of Cilicia after the Cilician pirates were crushed, simply is ridiculous.

Yes Tarsus was made the regions capital by the Romans, but that's only an official designation. It's a natural harbor with a history that goes back well before the pirates arrived.

There are multiple things wrong here. First, the of the magi was most likely made up. It simply makes little historical sense, and the events surrounding it are completely false. The astronomical event that supposedly led them to Jesus was impossible to begin with, and there was no massacre of the innocents later on.

I wholeheartedly agree with all of that, and I'm surprised you brought it up. I'm not sure where you're coming from now. It's just more evidence for the influence of Mithraism and Paul's likely melding of it into Christianity, as well as the biblical canonization of myth and allegory throughout the Bible.

Second, there is no reason to believe that the magi can from Iran, or had anything to do with Zoroastrianism. That view was a later idea that sprouted up because of the Greek term. Which really is neither here nor there. The earliest view was that the magi came from Arabia. It is also now the view that is beginning to become dominant once again.

Either way, there is no suggestion that they brought Zoroastrianism to Palestine. At least there is no evidence for it being practiced in Palestine during that time period.

Well, as you said yourself, it's all made up anyway, and I never suggested anything different.

The Lord's Supper was used among the early church fathers. It was used among the early follower of Jesus. It wasn't an embarrassment. More so, we are told that Paul adopts the Lord's Supper from the earlier movement. He didn't create it. The whole symbology that he uses isn't something he made. It is something he is clear that he received. As in, he's just passing it on.

Yes, it was used by the early church, but using the name used by the mystery religion of Mithras was an embarrassment. If it wasn't why change it? And why would Paul have Jesus coming to him in a vision about the "Lord's Supper", if Jesus had actually initiated it with the apostles who perpetuated it from then on. Because, as Jesus almost certainly must have said, something like remember me when you eat and drink. Paul had to change it to the Mithraic symbolic consumption of Jesus' flesh and blood. If that's not symbolic cannibalism, what is?

The Bible doesn't list her bloodline though. Her bloodline didn't matter at all to those writing the gospels, or later works. So she's not a link with anything, except with Judaism in general.

First off, the bloodlines differ. And if you're saying they're Joseph's bloodline, how can that be when God is supposed to be his father, making Joseph's irrelevant? Just another biblical SNAFU.[/quote]

 

[shunyadragon]

Except the part about wiping it out, which is blatant revisionism. "Pompey spared numerous Cilician pirates who had been taken prisoner, realizing that many had been driven to such recourse by desperation. Those who surrendered were settled in various parts of the southern coast of Asia Minor, where the population was sparse."

True, Mithraism was endemic to Rome and did not suddenly appear and disappear. It was absorbed and morphed into Christianity beginning with Constantine.

Yes, Mithraism spread through the empire later, but Tarsus and southern Anatolia is where it started in the first century BCE. But it's spread throughout the empire is irrelevant because Paul was a native from Tarsus in Cilicia.

Mithraism is older and goes back to Persia and earlier, and was around Rome before Christianity. and in Rome BCE

From: Mithraism - Wikipedia
Inscriptions and monuments related to the Mithraic Mysteries are catalogued in a two volume work by Maarten J. Vermaseren, the Corpus Inscriptionum et Monumentorum Religionis Mithriacae (or CIMRM).[116] The earliest monument showing Mithras slaying the bull is thought to be CIMRM 593, found in Rome. There is no date, but the inscription tells us that it was dedicated by a certain Alcimus, steward of T. Claudius Livianus. Vermaseren and Gordon believe that this Livianus is a certain Livianus who was commander of the Praetorian guard in 101 CE, which would give an earliest date of 98–99 CE.[117]

Votive altar from Alba Iulia in present-day Romania, dedicated to Invicto Mythrae in fulfillment of a vow (votum)
Five small terracotta plaques of a figure holding a knife over a bull have been excavated near Kerch in the Crimea, dated by Beskow and Clauss to the second half of the 1st Century BCE,[118] and by Beck to 50 BCE–50 CE. These may be the earliest tauroctonies, if they are accepted to be a depiction of Mithras.[119] The bull-slaying figure wears a Phrygian cap, but is described by Beck and Beskow as otherwise unlike standard depictions of the tauroctony. Another reason for not connecting these artifacts with the Mithraic Mysteries is that the first of these plaques was found in a woman's tomb.[120]

I wholeheartedly agree with all of that, and I'm surprised you brought it up. I'm not sure where you're coming from now. It's just more evidence for the influence of Mithraism and Paul's likely melding of it into Christianity, as well as the biblical canonization of myth and allegory throughout the Bible.

What is missing here is the context of Mithraism in the history of the Roman Empire and the relationship to the various religions of the Roman Empire. The tradition throughout the history of Rome was the synchronizing and blending the religions of the kingdoms and cultures conquered. The names of the Gods often changed and morphed into Roman religions. As noted the Roman Sun Gods primarily celebrated in Rome on the Winter Solstice (Dies Natalis Solis Invicti) were Saturnalia, Mithrites also celebrated this day based on Persian traditions. Designating it the birthday of Jesus Christ, the Son of God was just a part of the Roman synchronization of Roman religion by Constantine. The religions of Persia, and Greece, and Christianity were likewise synchronized and in corporated into the religion Roman Christianity.

Despite objections and superficial denials, the morphing of the Goddesses of Rome into the Goddess Mary was a part of this process. Objections that is just a cultural similarity is actually valid, but does resolve it with a superficial denial, and in this context since the statues and pictures of Mary contain pagan symbols of the older Goddesses, such as the moon (the sun symbolizes the male God and the moon symbolizes the moon Goddess..

The previous Hellenization of Jewish philosophy began previous to Rome, and was perpetuated under Paul. Fortunately Judaism had pre-Hellenization scripture well established and by and large returned to its Jewish roots.

Next: Constantine, the Roman Sun God worship and Christianity

 

[fallingblood]

Except the part about wiping it out, which is blatant revisionism. "Pompey spared numerous Cilician pirates who had been taken prisoner, realizing that many had been driven to such recourse by desperation. Those who surrendered were settled in various parts of the southern coast of Asia Minor, where the population was sparse."

Not revisionism at all. More so, your quote here shows that Tarsus could not have been the center of Mithraism, as by your own source, it says that the Cilician pirates who were spared were settled in populations which were sparse. More so, you're equating Cilician pirates to worshippers of Mithra. That is incorrect. While some Cilician pirates did worship Mithra, you can't assume all did, or that such a worship continued, especially when there is no evidence they did. That's why historians put the creation of Roman Mithraism at the last part of the first century.

Also, you're conflating the worship of Mithra and the Roman mystery religion of Mithraism. They are not the same.

Yes, Mithraism spread through the empire later, but Tarsus and southern Anatolia is where it started in the first century BCE. But it's spread throughout the empire is irrelevant because Paul was a native from Tarsus in Cilicia.

You have never shown that it started in Tarsus. You have shown that Cilician pirates worshipped Mithra. You have not shown this was centered in Tarsus (which wasn't the capitol of the area until after Pompey squashed the pirates and any remaining pirates were spread out where the population was sparse), or that it was the Roman mystery religion. Every scholar in the field puts the founding of Roman Mithraism at the end of the first century, C.E. What you've done is conflate the Persian worship of Mithra with the Roman religion of Mithraism. While they have the same individual, that is where the similarities end. Not the same religion.

Yes Tarsus was made the regions capital by the Romans, but that's only an official designation. It's a natural harbor with a history that goes back well before the pirates arrived.

Yet you haven't shown that it was a center for the worship of Mithra or that Cilician pirates ever controlled it. It may have a natural harbor and a history, but so did many places along the Mediterranean Sea. So the argument holds no water as you have nothing connecting the two.

I wholeheartedly agree with all of that, and I'm surprised you brought it up. I'm not sure where you're coming from now. It's just more evidence for the influence of Mithraism and Paul's likely melding of it into Christianity, as well as the biblical canonization of myth and allegory throughout the Bible.

So you agree with my point that you were wrong about the magi? You brought up the magi, not me, and you claimed they came with Zoroastrianism. Or were a link. I said they hadn't, and they most likely came from Arabia, where there was no connection as you were trying to point out. I have no idea how that could show any influence of Mithraism and Paul. The story has nothing to do with Paul, and Paul doesn't seem to be aware of it.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about here as you're contradicting yourself, and giving Paul way too much credit.

Well, as you said yourself, it's all made up anyway, and I never suggested anything different.

Then why bring it up at all? You brought it up, that it was evidence or a link to Zoroastrianism.
[/quote]
Yes, it was used by the early church, but using the name used by the mystery religion of Mithras was an embarrassment. If it wasn't why change it? And why would Paul have Jesus coming to him in a vision about the "Lord's Supper", if Jesus had actually initiated it with the apostles who perpetuated it from then on. Because, as Jesus almost certainly must have said, something like remember me when you eat and drink. Paul had to change it to the Mithraic symbolic consumption of Jesus' flesh and blood. If that's not symbolic cannibalism, what is?[/quote] There is nothing in Mithraism like a Last Supper. There is a communal meal, of water, wine, bread and meat. It was a standard meal for any gathering, and didn't have any ritual overtones. It was like a potluck (and they even had that mean during funerals). There is no consumption of flesh and blood with Mithraic symbology. It simply doesn't exist. So even if Paul copied it, or the early church did, it could not have been copied from Mithraism (especially since every scholar puts the founding of Mithraism at the end of the first century, C.E).

Yes, in one place Paul speaks of receiving the supper from Jesus. He also talks of receiving it from the community. And if you notice, Paul is answering a question about the Lord's Supper because there were competing ideas. He basically said, this is how I learned it. It all just suggests that the whole thing predated Paul by a long time.

Now, the Lord's Supper is symbolic. There was a message there. There is no suggestion that they truly believed that eating flesh or blood had anything to do with it.

First off, the bloodlines differ. And if you're saying they're Joseph's bloodline, how can that be when God is supposed to be his father, making Joseph's irrelevant? Just another biblical SNAFU.

The bloodlines do differ, and they were both invented, separately, for theological purposes. They weren't meant to be literal, but contained symbology. And it's not a Bible snafu. They weren't written in conjunction to each other. The authors didn't even know about each other. Each author was writing down their version of history and theology. The fact they were later collected, and even later canonized really reflects nothing on their content.