Analytics wrote:I'm sure you're not, lol.
You don't know that. It is simply a personally held belief. Testify all you like. ;-)
I only jumped in here because having seen many or most of these arguments years ago, I come to the same sticking points in my mind, and I don't see that the arguments have changed but I don't spend my life dwelling on these things which is why I'm going at this half assed yet trying to raise the sticking points that I see. I wish I had some good posts by another poster (on the other side of the argument from me, but I enjoyed it and learned from it) to share but that old board was destroyed by it's participants. That is historical fact. I have eye witnesses who will attest to it and were it not destroyed, I'd have empirical evidence for that claim. ;-)
You: The biggest issue with Carrier and friends is whether the mythical religions they describe really existed in the early first century. Did anybody really believe that there were savior-gods who did things in other realms? Doherty synthesizes various pieces of Pagan mythology, common motifs of dying and resurrecting Gods with allegories of living on earth such as the stories of Heracles, Osiris, Mithras, Attis, Adonis, and Dionysus, and other allegedly authentic ancient concepts and proposes that there were common yet heterogeneous and evolving "mystery cults" in the pagan world, and then proposes that if you mix in some Judaism, you'll get a mystery cult with Hebrew flavors. Such a Hebrew/Christian/Pagan mystery cult fits with what the Ascent of Isaiah describes.
If you believe that the world contained such beliefs, then the writings of Paul fit into that world. But if the world really wasn't like that, the whole question is mute.
Me: Being the Bible believer that I am, I do accept that the ancients subscribed to mystery cults. Paul himself (a Roman citizen was he not?) pointed to them in his writings. There are Old Testament references to them as well. Where I see a difference (and as I see it, this was the Roman's issue with Paul) is that if he indeed laid the ground work for another mystery cult (I don't deny that Christianity is a cult of Judaism--mystery cult I tend to reject that of course) he went completely in the face of existing polytheistic cults, was a threat to the gov't (Did he and why?) and he and others, put their lives on the line for this new Hebrew cult.
When you discuss mystery cults, you are including the reported miracles and resurrection/translation of Jesus, I assume. The reported 40-ish days of presentation between the purported resurrection and translation. Carrier, according to you, theoretically ranks the reports of Jesus up their with other types of god men figures, however, I see the distinction as being somewhat different and here is why.
This could be shaky ground to stand on, but here goes, and I don't know the answer to this.
Were the Romans in the habit of extinguishing all rising mystery cults or was their focus on these new ne'er do wells who preached regarding their Jesus? What I am asking is if the movement, the new cult, was just another off beat mystery cult with a small band of followers, why spend any time on it at all?
You don't have to answer. I'm simply putting it out there. Thinking on the screen.
So far as I can tell, huck and I are the only current Christian believers who showed up on the thread with the exception of Aristotle who made a cameo appearance, and I'm trying to add a bit more Christian representation lest the thread become an echo chamber of head nodding participants.
Because Jersey can't watch it without getting in there and saying something even if it's seen as half assed. ;-)