All of which means absolutely nothing. As I said, scholars are only willing to grant influence where it is undeniable. As far as calling Jesus the Jewish Dionysus, because Jews were engaged in the worship of Dionysus at the time, is a full stop no. They will never cross that line.GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 3:36 amHeaps and heaps! Scholarly literature on the influences of paganism on early Christianity is extensive, with some ideas more controversial than others of course. Cynicism, Stoicism, Platonism, lots more. For example, in the Wiki entry on Cynicism:
With regards to Stoicism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism
As for discussions around the influence of Platonism on early Christianity, you can easily find many articles on that.
Isn't it enough that mainstream scholars still regard Jesus and the Gospels as quasi-historic? What exactly are you asking for? Bart Ehrman lambasted the idea; J. Z. Smith outright rejected the idea of dying-and-rising gods to circumvent any potential influence on Christianity; and the scholarship still leans heavily on a Jewish-first influence, with Jews being resistant to worship pagan gods."Very tenuously"? No. Again I would ask for quotes from mainstream scholars to support that idea. It is certainly counter to what I've found in the literature.
Do you see the difference here? Syncretism in philosophy and syncretism of religion are two different things in this regard. Scholars have to admit that Christians and Jews were taken in by pagan philosophies, because they admit it themselves. But they will at the most deny any similarity between Jesus and pagan gods, and at the least call it quaint. They will never say that Christianity was Judaism and paganism syncretized.
But this all comes back to your utter lack of understanding what syncretism even is and how it works, and I honestly don't care enough to educate you on it.
Exhibit A. that I am wasting my time. First of all, paganism was a later term that applied to anyone living outside the city in rural and country areas. Pagans never called themselves pagans simply by virtue of worshiping Attis or Sabazios.. That's nothing but modern terminology and application.I don't understand what you mean by "Judaism is paganism" or "Christianity is paganism". What do you mean? The definition of paganism is: The religious beliefs and practices of pagans; religious opinion, worship, and conduct which is not Christian, Jewish, or Mohammedan. Is the definition incorrect?
Next, YHWH was a localized variant of Ba'al, the storm god of the Canaanites, who was syncretized with El, yet another god of storms, and the word for God in Hebrew is still El. Worshipers of of Ba'al even sacrificed bullocks on horned alters. Judaism was not in anyway different than the many religions of the time, all of which was a form of nature-worship.
Jesus Christ man.
We don't have different definitions. I have the correct one. That's that.My apologies. We have differing definitions, so it makes discussion on the topic difficult. But that's fine. Thanks for your input on it though.