Question on GMark's Adoptionism vs. the Empty Tomb

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Question on GMark's Adoptionism vs. the Empty Tomb

Post by John2 »

In fact, Job 42:10-12 notes that after all of Job's sufferings (and wishing he had not been born) God restored his fortunes:
... the Lord restored his fortunes and gave him twice as much as he had before. All his brothers and sisters and everyone who had known him before came and ate with him in his house. They comforted and consoled him over all the trouble the Lord had brought on him, and each one gave him a piece of silver and a gold ring. The Lord blessed the latter part of Job’s life more than the former part ...
So why couldn't Judas get to see the resurrected Jesus despite his sufferings and wishing he hadn't been born?
Last edited by John2 on Mon Aug 06, 2018 10:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: Question on GMark's Adoptionism vs. the Empty Tomb

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

Ben
Finally, when Jesus calls them "the disciples and Peter" in 16.7, does he mean to say that Peter is no longer a disciple? If not, why this wording?
The anonymous young man is speaking. The simplest motivation for the wording is that Peter distinguished himself as the last man to fall away. He remained on duty until just before dawn, so testifies the rooster, alone, surrounded and outnumbered in the very belly of the beast.

Jesus' forward about Peter's "denial" is ironically fulfilled (a standard device, not peculiar to Mark, but masterfully deployed here). In prospect, Peter imagines that denial would imply betrayal; betrayal hangs thick in the air at that point in the story. Peter would never betray Jesus, and says so, but he will deny him.

In the event, however, Peter's denial in Mark occurs in the context of an act of conspicuous physical courage, which none of the other men come close to achieving. Peter is tactically ineffective, but he showed up, which is more than anybody except the women and Jesus himself can say.

Peter has an 'atta boy' coming to him, and the well-informed young man extends it to him.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Question on GMark's Adoptionism vs. the Empty Tomb

Post by John T »

John2 wrote: Wed Aug 01, 2018 1:27 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Wed Aug 01, 2018 12:39 pm
John2 wrote: Wed Aug 01, 2018 10:19 am Ben wrote:
I am not sure what you are saying about the "bookends" here. To what is the resurrection on the third day a bookend?
The baptism. I think of it this way. The baptism is in the first chapter and the resurrection is in the last chapter (at least as we have it).
I compare (following Ulansey) the baptism with the death point by point. When you say that the resurrection also creates a bookend with the baptism, do you have a similar comparison in mind? If so, what are the points?
Wow, that's a tall order. I'll give it some thought. I can only offer my "impression" right now, but I'll see how it holds up. Hm.
I gave it some thought but there is not a lot of evidence for Mithrasim to give it much thought. As far as I know (which is not much) there are no extant writings of Mithrasim. Almost all the evidence for Mithrasim comes from sculptural art, not written scripture. The tauroctony relics remained a mystery for hundreds of years until modern scholars figured it was a star chart. No written story line is carved beneath the statues or tauroctony (at least as far as I know). So can you summarize how David Ulansey believed (point by point) that gMark is based on the slaying of the bull? Does Ulansey have any iconography in any mithraea that shows the Age of Tarus (the Bull) coming back to life after 3 days and 3 nights? :scratch:

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Question on GMark's Adoptionism vs. the Empty Tomb

Post by Joseph D. L. »

For those not fully aware, the bull that Mithras slays is resurrected in the moon. And the New Moon phase, in which the moon cannot be seen, is roughly three days. (To be more precise, the same length of time Jesus was dead, which wasn't a 72 hour period). It's why Osiris likewise has a period of three days between his resurrection and ascension, as well as his being torn into fourteen pieces.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Question on GMark's Adoptionism vs. the Empty Tomb

Post by John T »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Sun Aug 05, 2018 5:06 am For those not fully aware, the bull that Mithras slays is resurrected in the moon. And the New Moon phase, in which the moon cannot be seen, is roughly three days. (To be more precise, the same length of time Jesus was dead, which wasn't a 72 hour period). It's why Osiris likewise has a period of three days between his resurrection and ascension, as well as his being torn into fourteen pieces.

I thought Ulansey claimed that the bull had nothing to do with the moon but represents the constellation of Taurus? :scratch:

That the taurochony is a star map of several constellations. The bull is not the moon but a constellation. The others are Canis Minor the dog, Hydra the snake, Corvus the raven, and Scorpio the scorpion. Taurus was used by ancient religions to help determine the spring equinox but now due to precession the spring equinox had moved into Aries the ram. Knowing the precise time for planting crops in the spring was critical and knowing which stars appeared during the spring equinox lead to worshiping the god of those stars. Mithas is the god that moved the constellations and changed when spring occurs.

If correct, the Mithrasim cult had no symbolic connections with the empty tomb of Jesus.

Of course I'm not fully aware but if Joseph D.L. or any of the others (fully aware mythicists) have any evidence (not speculation), I would welcome a citation and/or link to help me with my ignorance.

Thanks in advance.

John T
Last edited by John T on Sun Aug 05, 2018 4:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Question on GMark's Adoptionism vs. the Empty Tomb

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Sun Aug 05, 2018 5:06 am For those not fully aware, the bull that Mithras slays is resurrected in the moon. And the New Moon phase, in which the moon cannot be seen, is roughly three days. (To be more precise, the same length of time Jesus was dead, which wasn't a 72 hour period). It's why Osiris likewise has a period of three days between his resurrection and ascension, as well as his being torn into fourteen pieces.
To be clear, the article by Ulansey to which I referred and which John2 was able to find and read online is "The Heavenly Veil Torn," which has nothing to do with Mithra(s).
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Question on GMark's Adoptionism vs. the Empty Tomb

Post by John T »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Aug 05, 2018 7:24 am
Joseph D. L. wrote: Sun Aug 05, 2018 5:06 am For those not fully aware, the bull that Mithras slays is resurrected in the moon. And the New Moon phase, in which the moon cannot be seen, is roughly three days. (To be more precise, the same length of time Jesus was dead, which wasn't a 72 hour period). It's why Osiris likewise has a period of three days between his resurrection and ascension, as well as his being torn into fourteen pieces.
To be clear, the article by Ulansey to which I referred and which John2 was able to find and read online is "The Heavenly Veil Torn," which has nothing to do with Mithra(s).
Yes, I agree that the splitting of the veil has nothing to do with Mithrasim.

But Ulansey does try to make a cosmic connection just the same.

He does that by selectively paraphrasing Josephus.

"In other words, the outer veil of the Jerusalem temple was actually one huge image of the starry sky!"...Ulansey

That is a stretch.

Actually, Josephus describes the veil as having many images on it representing the earth, air, sea, and the heavens. However, the stars were not the same as the zodiac constellations that represented living creatures which I presume would include Taurus. War of the Jews. Book 5 Chapter 5.

The book ends you refer to is what Ulansey calls a powerful and intriguing symbolic inclusio but it is misplaced in that the books ends do not represent cosmic events or the constellations of the zodiac but the beginning and end of Jesus' public ministry.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Question on GMark's Adoptionism vs. the Empty Tomb

Post by Joseph D. L. »

https://books.google.com/books?id=Bh03D ... on&f=false

Mithras emerges from a cave while Cautes and Cautopates stand by in this second century mosaic:

Image

Mithras-Sabazios as the crescent moon, second century:

Image

Attis reborn as the moon on this first century plate:

Image
nightshadetwine
Posts: 253
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 10:35 am

Re: Question on GMark's Adoptionism vs. the Empty Tomb

Post by nightshadetwine »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Sun Aug 05, 2018 5:06 am For those not fully aware, the bull that Mithras slays is resurrected in the moon. And the New Moon phase, in which the moon cannot be seen, is roughly three days. (To be more precise, the same length of time Jesus was dead, which wasn't a 72 hour period). It's why Osiris likewise has a period of three days between his resurrection and ascension, as well as his being torn into fourteen pieces.
Are you getting the information about Osiris being dead for 3 days from Plutarch? Do you know of any other sources that mention Osiris being dead for three days?

Also, are there any sources that you know of that mention the bull being resurrected in the moon 3 days later? Sorry that I keep asking for sources but I like to have the sources.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Question on GMark's Adoptionism vs. the Empty Tomb

Post by Joseph D. L. »

nightshadetwine wrote: Mon Aug 06, 2018 11:26 am Are you getting the information about Osiris being dead for 3 days from Plutarch? Do you know of any other sources that mention Osiris being dead for three days?
The Pyramid Texts give a three day period between resurrection and ascension, but not between death and resurrection. I know that's a technicality, but when dealing with such a topic the important thing to notice here is the usage of such a detail in approximation with the given context--that being, death, resurrection, ascension.

The three day period between death and resurrection was also employed during the winter festival in which was celebrated the birth of Horus. The Songs of Isis and Nephthys, as per the Bremner-Rhind Papyrus, describes what amounts to a mystery play in which two virgin (an important detail) priestesses portray Isis and Nephthys and mourn over the death of Osiris, but discover that he has been reborn, three days later, as Horus-Sokar.
Also, are there any sources that you know of that mention the bull being resurrected in the moon 3 days later? Sorry that I keep asking for sources but I like to have the sources.
Not that I'm aware, although it's implied that Osiris's birth-death-rebirth was originally connected with the moon. According to Herodotus, Osiris was born after a bull--his mother, Nut--was struck by moonlight. It's postulated that his being rent apart in fourteen pieces was based on the phases of the moon, as well as the wadjet, which was broken into seven pieces.

Of course Apis, the bull of Osiris, was linked to the moon, and did undergo ritual death and resurrection.
Post Reply