What Real Evidence Exists for The Resurrection?

[Copernicus]

Copernicus, you have done nothing in this thread except give your own opinion of your own belief. Condemned anybody who opposses that belief. So you have faith in your belief, that makes you the same as those you condemn.

I plead guilty to giving my own opinions and beliefs. That is no more nor less than you have been doing. I have not condemned anyone. It may have escaped your notice, but disagreements of opinion happen in debate forums, and those disagreements are not acts of condemnation. Take a breath and try to focus on the argument rather than the people making those arguments.

As you cannot disprove the resurrection, nor can you prove it, everything is open for conjecture. Even your own belief.

Amazingly, so is yours. Nobody here has tried to disprove the resurrection, although one could offer arguments as to why such an event was unlikely to have happened. The OP called on people to offer evidence in favor of the resurrection. The best that you could come up with was the puzzling idea that facts were subjective things. Well, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

 

[godnotgod]

So you have faith in your belief, that makes you the same as those you condemn.

As you cannot disprove the resurrection, nor can you prove it, everything is open for conjecture. Even your own belief.

Now, if we were talking about which hand holds the M&M peanut, your guess is as good as mine, as you imply. The nature of the subject matter is not unusual to begin with. We know what M&M's are, and that there is a 50/50 chance of it being in one hand or the other. Everything here is pretty straightforward. Proof of which hand it actually is in occurs when both hands are opened.

But when you make a claim for something completely preposterous to begin with, where little or no evidence exists, which is treated as if it were fact, is unprovable, and then proceed to say that your guess is as good as mine as to its validity, we have a problem, and that problem lies with you and why you have chosen to regard such a claim as valid. Then, to continue to insist that such a claim is valid only on the basis of faith renders it even more incredible.

But proof is not so much the issue here, as evidence that exists for the claim being made. So far, we have virtually zilch.

Perhaps it would be more instructive to discuss why Christians believe what they do, in this case, the Resurrection, because evidence certainly is not the basis, so it must be something else.

Why do I get the feeling that Christians don't really understand the nature of what they are claiming: that a man, and only ONE man ever, first returned to life after death, and then proceeded to ascend into the sky!

I wonder if, in light of all of the symbolism they use in their religion, whether it is possible for them to understand what the theme of resurrection means symbolically as it pertains to their own existence.

 

[logician]

"that a man, and only ONE man ever, first returned to life after death"

It is strange, and possibly convenient, that no resurrenctions have occurred in our day and time when they could be a convincing proof of Xianity. Didn't the supposed Jesus say that his believers would have his power if they truly believed? If so, they should show me some resurections, or get out of the kitchen.

 

[Copernicus]

That just shows how ignorant you are about literary studies. We can and do find out what the original contexts and intentions of the authors are. Not always, but we can make educated guesses...

Nobody really disputes that, but that is not an argument in favor of any particular analysis, especially when the texts in question have been heavily edited for centuries by people with doctrinal axes to grind. You need corroboration from independent sources, and that is precisely what you lack.

...That's better than godnotgod's assertion that the passages produce superstitious fear. He sees it that way because that's what he expects of the ancient culture that produced them...

No, it is plainly evident from the words used that they were intended to stoke up prejudices and fears in the minds of superstitious people. I don't agree with everything godnotgod sees in those particular passages (or disagree with everything you say about the value of textual analysis), but I agree with his general point about how the words were used. (I think that his "dragon", for example, was a metaphorical reference to powers that existed in that region at that time.)

He may be surprised to find out that these ancient cultures are far more sophisticated and realistic than he is or you are. But to see that would require doing some real learning. Otherwise, his (and your) "points" are all just bluster and nonsense.

I agree that modern folks do not really understand the level of sophistication that existed in, say, the Achaemenid Empire, but I think that that has also been true of modern Christian scholars. And you are not one to lecture others about "bluster and nonsense". You claim to refute specific arguments by calling people ignorant rather than actually offering actual evidence to back up your position.

Don't be so asinine. No, I'm not a trained historian, but I can read. I can read what trained historians say...

Most people can read, but they cannot evaluate what historians say from the perspective of a trained historian. You are, at best, a dilettante when it comes to history, as am I.

...I can also read what linguists and biblical studies people say...

Those are very esoteric fields. I am not a biblical scholar, although I've read works by people who are. I am a linguist, and I seriously doubt that you have enough training to evaluate the works of linguists. You are too confident in your own ability understand everything you read.

...And I have a brain and can sift wheat from chaff. That's called critical reflection, and it's entirely absent from godnotgod's procedure, as it is from yours....

Nonsense. The first place you need to apply that critical reflection is on your own ability to read the minds of others.

...You both simply reject what you don't understand and accuse those who do understand of playing about with superstitious mumbo jumbo.

And you simply reject anything out of hand that he or I happen to say. Look, let's get off of the personal attacks and get back to presenting arguments on the subject at hand. It may be that you have a whip-sharp mind and a sterling character. It may also be true that godnotgod and I are shallow-minded scoundrels. Whether or not that is true, it can still be the case that we are closer to the truth in this matter than you are.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

Most people can read, but they cannot evaluate what historians say from the perspective of a trained historian. You are, at best, a dilettante when it comes to history, as am I.

Odd, you seem to demand that Dunemeister have a PHD to speak authoratatively about history or linguistics or textual studies. Yet you need what, only a highschool education, or a college diploma to enable you speak so authoratively and insightfully on matters of religion?

 

[Smoke]

I would say, the christians in this forum have conclusively proven the resurrection claim to be a historical fact, to other christians and those who share the same belief as they do on this matter

I don't think your fellow Christians are as stupid as you think they are. To believe in the resurrection as a matter of faith is one thing. To consider it conclusively proven as a historical fact is sheer idiocy, and while I'm very critical of Christianity, I do know that not every Christian is a sheer idiot.

 

[Smoke]

(Well, ****. My post is too long. I hate when that happens. So I'll try to post part one and part two in rapid succession.)

Smoke, you've mentioned two very different groups in the above paragraph:
1) Scholars who think Jesus never existed...
2) Scholars who think Jesus actually existed...
You omit mention of a third possible group"
3) Scholars who have no opinion one way or the other

And you present no data at all to support the claim that a near consensus exists in group 2. Instead, you just repeat what we get from Christians, who sometimes use this argument of a "near consensus" as if it were proof of something instead of a blatant appeal to popularity ("near consensus") and authority ("serious, reputable"). I agree that a majority of historians who have published on the subject appear to believe that Jesus was a real person, but most of these same historians are Christians (at least in upbringing) who take it as an article of faith that he existed.

I haven't encountered scholars who work in this area and have no opinion one way or another, either in life or in my reading, but I'll admit they're a possible group.

All consensus means is the majority, dominant opinion. It doesn't mean absolute unanimity. I think it's obvious that the opinions of serious, reputable scholars ought to have more weight than the opinions of self-published cranks and enthusiasts, regardless of whether those scholars are Christians or former Christians. In fact, I would say that the ability to distinguish one's academic discipline from one's faith is the sine qua non of serious, reputable scholarship.

And I didn't say that the scholarly consensus was proof that Jesus existed, though I do think it's something to consider. I was responding to the claim that there was no consensus.

Paul was also the earliest source of information we have on the Jesus cult. I don't consider this brief mention to be very convincing evidence of the historicity of Jesus. It's not as if everyone who proselytized a religion back in those days was telling the literal truth about all of their experiences. The interesting thing about such details of Jesus' life is that they grow more and more elaborate in later documents, suggesting a pattern of embellishment. Paul himself hardly said anything about the life of Jesus. We have no details of a large segment of his childhood, yet you would think that Paul would have had more to say on that subject, having personally met the brother of Jesus. Would he not have had the curiosity to pump James for details?

One of my problems with Paul is that I don't think he was very interested in the historical Jesus. I think he just found Jesus a convenient hook on which to hang his own peculiar religious vision. Nor do I claim that Paul always told the truth, much less the literal truth.

But you're missing the point. Paul had an adversarial relationship with James. He had no motive to acknowledge James as Jesus' brother; the relationship puts Paul at something of a rhetorical disadvantage. Nevertheless, he did acknowledge the relationship, and I think it's reasonable to conclude that he did so because there was no way around it. James was known -- by people who, unlike Paul, actually knew Jesus -- to be Jesus' brother.

James seems to have been, contrary to the supremacy of Peter and Paul in later Christian thought, the unchallenged leader of the Jesus community, a position that likely had a lot to do with his relationship to Jesus. Paul is proud to say that in his disagreement with James he withstood Cephas [Peter] to his face, but it's notable that Peter didn't withstand James to his face, and there's no evidence that Paul ever did so, either.

I would go farther and say that the later claims in the gospels that Jesus' brothers didn't believe in him were probably a conscious Christian attempt to discredit the Ebionism (or proto-Ebionism) of James.

I don't know why this bizarre report makes the Jesus story sound more plausible to you. It sounds like just another story that was tacked on to the main narrative. If anything, the awkwardness of the tradition makes it sound unlikely to be true. From a Christian perspective, why would a man without sin seek out or need a baptism? What was being cleansed from his soul?

Well, exactly. That's precisely my point. Christians had no motive to create such a myth. Unlike the Virgin Birth, for instance, or the Resurrection, it doesn't gibe very well with Christianity. It doesn't fit; it doesn't make sense. I conclude that because Christians had no motive to invent the story, the most likely scenario is that they didn't invent it. On the contrary, they seem to be a little defensive about it, trying -- without success in my opinion -- to explain a story that was already current and made them uncomfortable.

I don't see how this has a bearing on the historicity of Jesus. According to Elaine Pagels, that may have been the prevalent belief before the elevation of Christian orthodoxy to state religion in the Empire. The Virgin Birth and divinity of Christ would have been very important to Constantine, who wanted a religion that would be worthy of Roman power. How could the central figure not have both those qualities when past emperors had them? Caesar Augustus was also supposedly the product of a Virgin Birth, and emperors were generally considered divine.

I haven't read everything Pagels has written, but if she made these claims she was definitely overreaching. Both of these beliefs were widespread in Christianity before Constantine, and the Virgin Birth was uncontroversial in the fourth century. Both the Orthodox and the Arians believed in the Virgin Birth. (And Augustus' mother, by the way, was not believed to have been a virgin even by pagans, and certainly not by Christians.) Constantine was more concerned with uniformity in Christianity than with the details, and described the controversy over the divinity of Christ as a trivial matter. His Arian sympathies have often been noted, and he was baptized by an Arian. The idea that he forced the doctrine of the divinity of Christ onto the Church is not credible.

 

[Smoke]

You seem to acknowledge how little this tells us, and you do not mention any of the points made by critics of Jesus' historicity. For me, the best summary of the state of this debate over historicity comes from Jesus - History or Myth? Historian David H. Lewis, an advocate for non-historicity, summed up the only viable positions as these three:

(1) Jesus did exist as the gospels tell us
(2) he didn’t exist
(3) he did exist but is now essentially almost unrecognizable and may be unrecoverable.

All but Christian scholars reject (1). Most scholars (of indeterminate number) reject (2), as did his opponent in the debate, William Loader. At best, one might argue for a kind of shadowy itinerant "proto-Jesus" who spawned the Christian narrative that we have today. But evidence for that position is extremely scant.

Is this by any chance the same David H. Lewis who writes books about hidden meanings in the pyramids? Anyway, those three viable positions make a neat rhetorical device, like Lewis' "liar, lunatic, or Lord" argument, and about as convincing. In fact the dominant -- and practically the only -- scholarly position is that Jesus did exist but we can't know a great deal about him with certainty. Serious scholars recognize when they are speculating. They may think it's much more likely that Jesus was born at Nazareth than at Bethlehem, for instance, but they don't claim that's an established fact.

Having read Lewis' introductory essay on that site, I really don't see much point in going on. He says, for instance:

But the problem that no-one seems to appreciate is that the gospels are not our very earliest Christian records. Just as we would expect an archaeologist to dig down to the deepest levels to give us a true picture of an ancient scene or event, so we should also expect historians or theologians to consult the earliest written records of Christianity. However, almost without exception they become fixated on the gospels and virtually ignore the very earliest or independent Christian evidence from Paul and others. This gives us a very distorted and inaccurate picture.

This is simply not true, and it is obvious to anyone with the slightest familiarity with the scholarship that it is not true. So we have to face the likelihood that Lewis is either not a competent scholar or is deliberately lying.

He also says:

For instance, Gibson’s film shows a flashback to the famous ‘woman taken in adultery’ incident. This moral of “let him who is without sin cast the first stone” is an irresistible favourite with preachers and program producers alike, but it takes only the most rudimentary research to discover that this story does not appear in any of the earliest manuscripts of the gospel (most annotated Bibles tell us this), and so must have been invented or borrowed from elsewhere and incorporated into the Bible many years later.

Well, of course, it takes only the most rudimentary research to discover this because scholars recognize it and make the information widely available. It's interesting to note that Lewis has chosen to set his theory not against serious scholarship but against pop-culture crap like Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. That may, again, be rhetorically useful, in that it's easier to debunk pop culture than serious scholarship, but it's not very impressive.

The rest of the essay is similar blather. He presents things that are well known to anybody with even a beginner's familiarity with the literature, and acts as if these are shocking secrets the scholars are hiding from the public. His essay reads like something a teenager might write on first learning that everything he was taught in Sunday school isn't true, and if it had been written by such a teenager, one might excuse it.

BTW, Smoke, thanks for taking the time to answer me. We disagree on this particular issue, but it is an interesting one to ponder.

I'm sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you; I didn't see your response till tonight.

 

[Smoke]

As you cannot disprove the resurrection, nor can you prove it, everything is open for conjecture.

Not really.

If I claim to be the son of my mother's husband, I doubt that will even excite much doubt in my audience. If I claim to be the son of Elvis Presley, it will be reasonable for them to demand some pretty convincing evidence. If I claim to be the son of Rudolph Valentino, they will be justified in dismissing my claim out of hand, and in demanding the most extraordinary evidence even to consider it.

 

[dogsgod]

But you're missing the point. Paul had an adversarial relationship with James. He had no motive to acknowledge James as Jesus' brother; the relationship puts Paul at something of a rhetorical disadvantage. Nevertheless, he did acknowledge the relationship, and I think it's reasonable to conclude that he did so because there was no way around it. James was known -- by people who, unlike Paul, actually knew Jesus -- to be Jesus' brother.

You claim that James was known as the brother of Jesus. Paul referred to James once as the brother of the Lord, or the Lord's brother depending on the translation. Many scholars take this to mean that James was the literal blood brother of Jesus even though the term brother or brothers was regularly applied to apostles and members of the church. None of the other epistle writers refer to James as the brother of Jesus. The Acts of the Apostles follows the disciples of Jesus after his death but doesn't name any of Jesus' brothers and doesn't support this idea that Jesus' brother was a church leader. Paul referred to fellow apostles Peter, James, and John as pillars, and throughout the gospels, Peter, James, and John are portrayed as disciples of Jesus. James, the son of Zebedee is the most likely candidate for the brother of the Lord.

 

[Smoke]

You claim that James was known as the brother of Jesus. Paul referred to James once as the brother of the Lord, or the Lord's brother depending on the translation. Many scholars take this to mean that James was the literal blood brother of Jesus even though the term brother or brothers was regularly applied to apostles and members of the church.

"Brothers" was applied to all male Christians, but not "brothers of the Lord" or "the Lord's brothers."

None of the other epistle writers refer to James as the brother of Jesus. The Acts of the Apostles follows the disciples of Jesus after his death but doesn't name any of Jesus' brothers and doesn't support this idea that Jesus' brother was a church leader.

Acts specifically says that Jesus' mother and brothers were with the apostles in the Upper Room. If James the Lord's brother was not the leader of the church, then which James was?

Paul referred to fellow apostles Peter, James, and John as pillars, and throughout the gospels, Peter, James, and John are portrayed as disciples of Jesus. James, the son of Zebedee is the most likely candidate for the brother of the Lord.

James the son of Zebedee was, according to Acts, killed before the events to which I've been referring. He's not even in the running, much less the most likely candidate.

 

[dogsgod]

"Brothers" was applied to all male Christians, but not "brothers of the Lord" or "the Lord's brothers."

That Paul didn't refer to anyone else in particular as the brother of the Lord is hardly a compelling argument for the term to be taken as the brother of Jesus. Besides, we can see the usages such as in Philippians 1:14, "brothers/brethren in the Lord" where it is clearly referring to a brotherhood of believers.

Acts specifically says that Jesus' mother and brothers were with the apostles in the Upper Room. If James the Lord's brother was not the leader of the church, then which James was?

Yes, the leaders were all men, disciples, and given names, Peter, James the son of Zebedee, and his brother John are named first as always, and as well the woman and Mary along with Jesus' brothers were mentioned but not named. The woman and children praying with the men as one is hardly an indicator that one of Jesus' brothers is a leader of the church. That Peter, James, and John are named first is consistent with the gospels as well as with Paul referring to Peter, James, and John as pillars.

James the son of Zebedee was, according to Acts, killed before the events to which I've been referring. He's not even in the running, much less the most likely candidate.

According to Paul, Galatians 1 and 2, he met with James twice, fourteen years apart. According to Acts 9, Paul met with the apostles, this is before James is killed in Acts 12. This first meeting corresponds with Galatians 1, it is during this first meeting when Paul refers to James as the brother of the Lord.

There is a problem with Acts 12:2 (and he killed James, the brother of John, with the sword) on a number of levels. The story is about Peter, it's not about James, and as we read a little later in Acts 12:17, Peter refers to James as if James was never killed. It leaves the reader asking who is this James that Peter is now referring to since we just read that James was killed. Also, that only one line is devoted to the death of James, the son of Zebedee is curious. Without that one line, everything makes perfect sense, the James referred to throughout Acts is James, the son of Zebedee, Peter's partner according to the gospels. There is reasoned speculation as to how that line got there, reasons for an unintentional interpolation as well as intentional, Jesus Myth Part II - Follow-up, Commentary, and Expansion

Paul never sates that James was killed, that he met with a different James during their second meeting, and there is no reason to suggest that Paul met with anyone other than James, the son of Zebedee, during their first meeting.

 

[Smoke]

That Paul didn't refer to anyone else in particular as the brother of the Lord is hardly a compelling argument for the term to be taken as the brother of Jesus.

It's certainly compelling evidence that your argument about the phrase being used all the time is worthless.

Besides, we can see the usages such as in Philippians 1:14, "brothers/brethren in the Lord" where it is clearly referring to a brotherhood of believers.

Yes, it is. And it's should not be necessary to point out that "brothers in the Lord" has quite a different meaning from "the Lord's brother."

The woman and children praying with the men as one is hardly an indicator that one of Jesus' brothers is a leader of the church.

Who said "woman and children"? Jesus' brothers were children at the time of his death?

According to Paul, Galatians 1 and 2, he met with James twice, fourteen years apart. According to Acts 9, Paul met with the apostles, this is before James is killed in Acts 12. This first meeting corresponds with Galatians 1, it is during this first meeting when Paul refers to James as the brother of the Lord. [snip]

Paul never sates that James was killed, that he met with a different James during their second meeting, and there is no reason to suggest that Paul met with anyone other than James, the son of Zebedee, during their first meeting.

Since, as you admit, it was clearly the same James, there is no reason to suggest that the James who led the early Jesus community was anybody but James the Lord's brother, a person distinct from the James who was dead by the time Paul wrote.

There is a problem with Acts 12:2 (and he killed James, the brother of John, with the sword) on a number of levels. The story is about Peter, it's not about James, and as we read a little later in Acts 12:17, Peter refers to James as if James was never killed. It leaves the reader asking who is this James that Peter is now referring to since we just read that James was killed. Also, that only one line is devoted to the death of James, the son of Zebedee is curious. Without that one line, everything makes perfect sense, the James referred to throughout Acts is James, the son of Zebedee, Peter's partner according to the gospels. There is reasoned speculation as to how that line got there, reasons for an unintentional interpolation as well as intentional, Jesus Myth Part II - Follow-up, Commentary, and Expansion first meeting.

If one is absolutely determined to come up with such a tortured interpretation, I suppose one will. The idea that there was more than one James in the Jesus movement and that the readers of Acts might have been able to figure that out is, of course, the last thing one might want to consider.

But anyway, dogsgod, I've been around in these circles with you before, and I don't see any point in discussing it with you again. Your dogmatic commitment to your position is clear, and it's always pointless to argue with true believers.

 

[dogsgod]

It's certainly compelling evidence that your argument about the phrase being used all the time is worthless.

Yes, it is. And it's should not be necessary to point out that "brothers in the Lord" has quite a different meaning from "the Lord's brother."

Who said "woman and children"? Jesus' brothers were children at the time of his death?


Since, as you admit, it was clearly the same James, there is no reason to suggest that the James who led the early Jesus community was anybody but James the Lord's brother, a person distinct from the James who was dead by the time Paul wrote.


If one is absolutely determined to come up with such a tortured interpretation, I suppose one will. The idea that there was more than one James in the Jesus movement and that the readers of Acts might have been able to figure that out is, of course, the last thing one might want to consider.

But anyway, dogsgod, I've been around in these circles with you before, and I don't see any point in discussing it with you again. Your dogmatic commitment to your position is clear, and it's always pointless to argue with true believers.

Fine, I was just pointing out some of the contradictions a literal brother of Jesus presents.

 

[dogsgod]

BTW, I'm open to suggestions, it's just that no one has been able to explain how it is that Jesus' brother is suddenly a church leader when he is otherwise never before mentioned without his mother present.

 

[godnotgod]

I have come across a very interesting publication, 'St. Paul and the Mystery Religions', by Harry Kennedy, published in 1913, that is available for free download in .pdf format, or which can be read online. It appears to be a very scholarly work, though I am not familiar with Mr. Kennedy. In it, the author demonstrates the link St. Paul had to the mystery religions of the time, especially of their impact upon the Hellenistic world, and how they were a determining factor in the shaping of St. Paul's writings. I strongly suspect that here lies the key to how and why the Resurrection theme became embedded into what is now modern Christianity, it having its undeniable origins in the mystery religions long before Christianity emerged.

My understanding is that St. Paul was actually steeped in the mystery religions as a child, as part of his education, so they may have had a profound influence on him in his later years.

You can download or read the file online here:

Internet Archive: Free Download: St. Paul and the mystery religions

 

[DallasApple]

I think Jesus did rise..Hopefully in many many many of us.

I think think the problem is what He hated has risen more than Him.

Love

Dallas

 

[godnotgod]

Here is another, also very interesting publication, in that it was written by none other than the great Dr. Martin Luther King during his undergraduate days for a course entitled: Development of Christian Ideas. The essay is entitled: 'The Influence of the Mystery Religions on Christianity', written in 1949-1950:

King Papers

Here is an excerpt:

"There can hardly be any gainsaying of the fact that Christianity was greatly influenced by the Mystery religions, both from a ritual and a doctrinal angle. This does not mean that there was a deliberate copying on the part of Christianity. On the contrary it was generally a natural and unconscious process rather than a deliberate plan of action. Christianity was subject to the same influences from the environment as were the other cults, and it sometimes produced the same reaction. The people were conditioned by the contact with the older religions and the background and general trend of the time. Dr. Shirley Jackson Case has written some words that are quite apt at this point. He says: "Following the lead of the apostle Paul, the Christian missionaries on gentile soil finally made of Christianity a more appealing religion than any of the other mystery cults. This was accomplished, not by any slavish process of imitation, but by a serious attempt to meet better the specific religious needs that the mysteries had awakened and nourished, and by phrasing religious assurances more convincingly in similar terminology."*

[Footnote: Case, "The Mystery Religions," The Encyclopedia of Religion, Edited by Vergilius Ferm, pp. 511-513]


The greatest influence of the mystery religions on Christianity lies in a different direction from that of doctrine and ritual. It lies in the fact that the mystery religions paved the way for the presentation of Christianity to the world of that time. They prepared the people mentally and emotionally to understand the type of religion which Christianity represented. They were themselves, in varying degrees, imperfect examples of the Galilean cult which was to replace them. They encouraged the movement away from the state religions and the philosophical systems and toward the desire for personal salvation and promise of immortality.

Christianity was truly indebted to the mystery religions for this contribution, for they had done this part of the groundwork and thus opened the way for Christian missionary work. Many views, while passing out of paganism into Christianity were given a more profound and spiritual meaning by Christians, yet we must be indebted to the source. To discuss Christianity without mentioning other religions would be like discussing the greatness of the Atlantic Ocean without the slightest mention of the many tributaries that keep it flowing."



* This is perhaps a euphemistic manner of stating that St. Paul cleverly incorporated attractive elements of the mystery religions into the teachings of Yeshua as a device to lure the many pagan converts over to the new religion.

The Catholic Church did much the same thing in Mexico when it needed to convert several million indigenous Indios into Christianity by adopting the revered Aztec goddess of fertility, Tonantzin, into the Church, transforming her into Our Lady of Guadalupe Hidalgo (!). The Indians simply followed where their goddess went.

 

[Smoke]

This is perhaps a euphemistic manner of stating that St. Paul cleverly incorporated attractive elements of the mystery religions into the teachings of Yeshua as a device to lure the many pagan converts over to the new religion.

I doubt that it was really cynical on Paul's part. I agree with the author that it "was generally a natural and unconscious process rather than a deliberate plan of action."

 

[logician]

It's quite obvious that in the books in the NT actallly attributed to Paul (whoever he was), that he knew nothing of an earthly Jesus, never used the teachings of the supposed Jesus for reference, instead concentrating on a spiritual Christ.