Tammuz = early Temple Jesus.
Tammuz is an ancient shepherd god who was worshipped in the Jerusalem temple according to Ezekiel, and the Jewish calendar still has Tammuz as a month, a relic of their first savior cult. An agricultural savior cult.
I hear the complaint about “bilocation.” But what is death to the immortal except bilocation anyway. Most stories about the dead and the underworld has the dead doing many of the same things we do in everyday life: complaining its too hot, too cold, or nobody is listening to me (Beetlejuice?)! I can’t understand the idea of Jesus dying and defeating death unless he was never really dead in the first place. Perhpas dead in the body, but what does that count for when that is just a clay vessel in the first place. Tammuz was in the underworld each year for half the year. And when he went away the women wept for him in the Temple (Ezekiel 8) just as the women wept for Jesus on Golgotha and then came to attend to his dead carcass only for it to be “risen.”
I would also note that Ezekiel has some of the top officials in the land worshiping other gods in the Temple. This seems to have been an ongoing thing, probably a “problem” for the Yahwists who supposedly kept destroying people’s idols and sometimes killing those who worshiped idols. How much other gods were worshiped in the Temple is hard to quantify. Since Hezekiah and Josiah were about the only “reformers”, it may be that idols were worshipped in the temple throughout most of Judah’s past, even through the lens of “biblical history.”
The steps from Tammuz to Jesus are probably lost forever. But clearly there was a dying and rising god worshiped in the temple by people who may have called themselves Judeans (Judahites, People of Yahweh, but not the stringent yahwists).
I did try to search to see if this subject had already been brought up, could not find it so here it is. The point is that everything worth noting about the supposedly historical Jesus is a rehash. This rehash is not about tales from far away cultures, or even Egyptian, Babylonian, or Assyrian cultures. It is rehash of previous stories in Judeans were very aware of. IF the mythology already existed, than wouldn’t that tip the scales in favor of a myth made historical over the option of a historical man mythicized?
FocusMyView said
Tammuz = early Temple Jesus.Tammuz is an ancient shepherd god who was worshipped in the Jerusalem temple according to Ezekiel, and the Jewish calendar still has Tammuz as a month, a relic of their first savior cult. An agricultural savior cult.
I hear the complaint about “bilocation.” But what is death to the immortal except bilocation anyway. Most stories about the dead and the underworld has the dead doing many of the same things we do in everyday life: complaining its too hot, too cold, or nobody is listening to me (Beetlejuice?)! I can’t understand the idea of Jesus dying and defeating death unless he was never really dead in the first place. Perhpas dead in the body, but what does that count for when that is just a clay vessel in the first place. Tammuz was in the underworld each year for half the year. And when he went away the women wept for him in the Temple (Ezekiel 8) just as the women wept for Jesus on Golgotha and then came to attend to his dead carcass only for it to be “risen.”
I would also note that Ezekiel has some of the top officials in the land worshiping other gods in the Temple. This seems to have been an ongoing thing, probably a “problem” for the Yahwists who supposedly kept destroying people’s idols and sometimes killing those who worshiped idols. How much other gods were worshiped in the Temple is hard to quantify. Since Hezekiah and Josiah were about the only “reformers”, it may be that idols were worshipped in the temple throughout most of Judah’s past, even through the lens of “biblical history.”
The steps from Tammuz to Jesus are probably lost forever. But clearly there was a dying and rising god worshiped in the temple by people who may have called themselves Judeans (Judahites, People of Yahweh, but not the stringent yahwists).
I did try to search to see if this subject had already been brought up, could not find it so here it is. The point is that everything worth noting about the supposedly historical Jesus is a rehash. This rehash is not about tales from far away cultures, or even Egyptian, Babylonian, or Assyrian cultures. It is rehash of previous stories in Judeans were very aware of. IF the mythology already existed, than wouldn’t that tip the scales in favor of a myth made historical over the option of a historical man mythicized?
Death and traveling to the underworld were not considered the same thing. Hence why the complaint of bilocation exists. If you want proof, just read about Rhampsinitus. He is specifically said to go to the underworld “alive.” Also, Odysseus, where the dead and living are separated and cannot touch each other.
The women wept for Tammuz as a part of a yearly tradition associating him with crops (go read Tryggve Mettinger). This is not remotely parallel to the women weeping for someone who died as a vicarious savior for sins.
Tammuz is not dying or rising. He did not die and did not rise. Also, did you seriously try justifying your arguments with Beetlejuice instead of ancient sources? Also, Jesus and gods can actually die physically. Inanna died in the underworld and was brought back using magical herbs and waters (again, not remotely parallel to Jesus). Tammuz, on the other hand, never dies. Jesus is crucified, and it should be noted it is said he was in the form of a human, unlike Tammuz.
Your parallels are all surface level and the fact you cannot demonstrate any steps from Tammuz to Jesus, or even that Tammuz was dead, just demonstrates you are projecting your parallelomania on the ancient world.
Are there any stories (preferably from the first century CE) that explain exactly what Jesus did between his physical death on the cross and his disappearance from the tomb in Mark? I am struggling to understand the concept of immortals in particular “dying” other than bilocation. I am not sure there is any clear understanding of the concept by the ancients, nor would there have to be since it was myth.
After reading Ehrman’s latest book for laymen on the ideas of afterlife, it certainly seems the opinions varied among Greeks and among Judeans as well.
Also, I wonder why the specific method of resurrection is of such great concern. It seems the general idea of going down to the underworld to make drastic changes and being stuck there 3 days is a theme. It makes its way into Jonah. Jesus story notes the “sign of Jonah.” So its a theme.
FocusMyView said
Are there any stories (preferably from the first century CE) that explain exactly what Jesus did between his physical death on the cross and his disappearance from the tomb in Mark? I am struggling to understand the concept of immortals in particular “dying” other than bilocation. I am not sure there is any clear understanding of the concept by the ancients, nor would there have to be since it was myth.After reading Ehrman’s latest book for laymen on the ideas of afterlife, it certainly seems the opinions varied among Greeks and among Judeans as well.
(1) Jesus was not “immortal” when he died. He was fully human. You forget your literal basics of Christian theology. Tammuz *never dies*
(2) There are no “immortals” in ancient literature as we would think of them. Ancient gods are not invulnerable and yes they can die. They usually have bodies, and stories are told of them being killed. For instance, Osiris was killed and fully dead when Set rips him apart. Isis puts him back together, however, he does not rise from the dead. He is still dead and that is why he rules the underworld and is represented as a mummy. Other instances are like the death of Baldr.
(3) Not all deities who die go to an afterlife clearly. Furthermore, going to an afterlife once dead, and bilocation are not the same. Again, Odysseus and Rhampsinitus go to the underworld, but they are alive. Entering the underworld is not equivalent to dying. Inanna dies after she is explicitly killed in the underworld, but simply traveling to the underworld is not the same as dying. The underworld is a geographical place in ancient cosmology, and people can go to and from there while alive under specific circumstances. In fact, it is so common for living people to go to the underworld, we have a specific term for it in Greek mythology: katabasis.
(4) Some legends say that Jesus went to Hell for a few days after he died and before his body was translated. However, this would be his spirit. He was still dead, unlike Tammuz, whose body never died. Tammuz simply does not die. Jesus does.
FocusMyView said
Also, I wonder why the specific method of resurrection is of such great concern. It seems the general idea of going down to the underworld to make drastic changes and being stuck there 3 days is a theme. It makes its way into Jonah. Jesus story notes the “sign of Jonah.” So its a theme.
(1) The Gospel of Mark, and authentic letters of Paul do not say Jesus was in the underworld for three days. In fact, there is not a single god I know of, aside from Jesus, who dies and is resurrected three days later.
(2) Tammuz does not go for three days. He goes for half a year.
(3) Tammuz never dies. Therefore, he is never resurrected. He travels from geographical locations.
(4) Matthew specifically uses Jonah and Moses as parallels to emphasize Jesus’ importance. This is not a “theme” of dying-rising. This is the use of prophetic traditions to emphasize Jesus’ divinity and prophetic personality.
Again, go get your parallelomania checked out.
Matthew 12:40 For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so for three days and three nights the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth.
So we have a theme. 3 days “down under”
I would digress into how the sea monster represents the same chaos that stops the sun-chariot in the underworld… but the above quote really makes all of that unneeded.
From my understanding, Ishtar-Innana was down there 3 days, or dead 3 of the days down there. whichever. Obviously female mythology had to be rewritten as male mythology at some point in Judean culture.
So way off in the past we have the Ishtar rising after 3 days. Then long after (though the Ishtar narrative is still well known) we have a Jonah 3 days down deep narrative. Then we have Jesus story calling on the Jonah story to explain his own.
I am not saying the gospel writers used Ishtar as inspiration at all. I am saying they used Jonah.
But Ishtar, if she is another name for Asherah, was worshipped in the temple in Jerusalem, probably more often than YHWH was considering how few and far between supposed Yahwist kings were!
FocusMyView said
Matthew 12:40 For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so for three days and three nights the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth.So we have a theme. 3 days “down under”
I would digress into how the sea monster represents the same chaos that stops the sun-chariot in the underworld… but the above quote really makes all of that unneeded.
From my understanding, Ishtar-Innana was down there 3 days, or dead 3 of the days down there. whichever. Obviously female mythology had to be rewritten as male mythology at some point in Judean culture.
So way off in the past we have the Ishtar rising after 3 days. Then long after (though the Ishtar narrative is still well known) we have a Jonah 3 days down deep narrative. Then we have Jesus story calling on the Jonah story to explain his own.
I am not saying the gospel writers used Ishtar as inspiration at all. I am saying they used Jonah.
But Ishtar, if she is another name for Asherah, was worshipped in the temple in Jerusalem, probably more often than YHWH was considering how few and far between supposed Yahwist kings were!
(1) Again, the Jonah imagery is emphasizing Jesus in parallel with prophetic figures. Not dying-rising. Seriously, learn a little nuance.
(2) Incorrect. The three days and three nights with Inanna marks the beginning of the mourning rituals, not resurrection.
(3) Matthew gets the three days from Mark. Mark does not cite Jonah. Matthew decides to parallel Jesus’ three days with Jonah later, but Mark did not derive the three days from Jonah. So, you are putting the cart before the horse. Again, this is your parallelomania.
(4) The land of the living and dead can be traversed by living people who never die, nor are they considered dead. Again, Odysseus…
(5) Also, Ishtar is not another name for Asherah. Ishtar = Astarte. And there is no myth of a dying-rising Astarte or Asherah in Canaanite mythology or in Israel.
“(1) Jesus was not “immortal” when he died. He was fully human. You forget your literal basics of Christian theology. Tammuz *never dies.”
I do respect your expansive knowledge base, which makes me think you cannot possibly believe the statement “He was fully human. You forget your literal basics of Christian theology.”
Are you supposing a Christology that is “higher” over time? Because Paul blows that up. And John’s use of the same ideas Philo wrote of also blows that up.
FocusMyView said
“(1) Jesus was not “immortal” when he died. He was fully human. You forget your literal basics of Christian theology. Tammuz *never dies.”I do respect your expansive knowledge base, which makes me think you cannot possibly believe the statement “He was fully human. You forget your literal basics of Christian theology.”
Are you supposing a Christology that is “higher” over time? Because Paul blows that up. And John’s use of the same ideas Philo wrote of also blows that up.
John specifically holds that Jesus became human. Paul also holds this (Jesus was born [Gal 4:4]; he was Jewish [Rom 15:8]; had a brother named James [Gal 1:18-19], etc. etc. etc.).
Paul thinks that Jesus was incarnated as a human being. So does John for that matter.
(1) Jesus was not “immortal” when he died. He was fully human. You forget your literal basics of Christian theology. Tammuz *never dies*
(2) There are no “immortals” in ancient literature as we would think of them. Ancient gods are not invulnerable and yes they can die. They usually have bodies, and stories are told of them being killed. For instance, Osiris was killed and fully dead when Set rips him apart. Isis puts him back together, however, he does not rise from the dead. He is still dead and that is why he rules the underworld and is represented as a mummy. Other instances are like the death of Baldr.
(3) Not all deities who die go to an afterlife clearly. Furthermore, going to an afterlife once dead, and bilocation are not the same. Again, Odysseus and Rhampsinitus go to the underworld, but they are alive. Entering the underworld is not equivalent to dying. Inanna dies after she is explicitly killed in the underworld, but simply traveling to the underworld is not the same as dying. The underworld is a geographical place in ancient cosmology, and people can go to and from there while alive under specific circumstances. In fact, it is so common for living people to go to the underworld, we have a specific term for it in Greek mythology: katabasis.
(4) Some legends say that Jesus went to Hell for a few days after he died and before his body was translated. However, this would be his spirit. He was still dead, unlike Tammuz, whose body never died. Tammuz simply does not die. Jesus does.
Your answers are based on a very narrow view of Jesus’ existence. Paul certainly viewed Jesus as preexisting his physical earthly walk(s) in the world, crucified, then promoted to the right hand of God.
This idea has a physical form taken on then shed, but Jesus is “alive” both before and after taking the physical form.
Robert said Even in the mythological Philippians poem, Paul stresses that Jesus died.
What I am getting at is what does “dead” even mean when we are talking about a being who “lived” before he was “born of a woman.”
Besides all of that, this is a completely updated version of 1) Judean Jesuses based loosely on 2) Babylonian hero types such as Innana and Tammuz. Every update is going to reflect the current versions of “dead” and “risen” as well as completely change from an agricultural “dying and rising” god that stays dead for 6 months for agricultural reasons instead of providing salvation for souls by defeating “death” itself.
“Paul thinks that Jesus was incarnated as a human being. So does John for that matter.”
That is really a part of the whole “Judean Jesuses” concept I have not yet touched on. Elisha, Joshua, and Jeshua (perhaps Isaiah and Hosea as well, considering the Logos implications) would simply be earlier instances of Jesus. Not sure how that type of incarnation works. At all.
Maybe I don’t need to. Maybe what we have is first century Paul trying to historicize mythology of the Judean Jesuses. His ideas are very eccentric. Again, he has been to the third heaven and knows one who has been to the seventh.
My point is that mythology, when written, was mostly just that. One myth contradicted another. No problem. But here we are trying to figure out why these myths don’t exactly match a book not yet written in the gospel of Mark or the epistles of Paul. I would think that Paul’s use of Sarah and Hagar figuratively means that trying to expect literalism from him is probably a useless exercise, is it not? Why should we expect anything different in his uses of the “Judean Jesuses?”
FocusMyView said
Your answers are based on a very narrow view of Jesus’ existence. Paul certainly viewed Jesus as preexisting his physical earthly walk(s) in the world, crucified, then promoted to the right hand of God.
This idea has a physical form taken on then shed, but Jesus is “alive” both before and after taking the physical form.
No actually, my views are based on what the earliest Christians were saying about Jesus. Paul states that Jesus was of a human descent (Rom. 9:3-5; Gal. 4:4; Gal. 1:18-19). Yes, Paul viewed Jesus as preexisting. He also viewed Jesus as fully and totally dying in a real physical way. And no, the entire point of the resurrection is that Jesus comes back to life in that form, he was dead in the same way that a human was, hence why the entire point of the resurrection functions in Paul’s theology.
FocusMyView said
What I am getting at is what does “dead” even mean when we are talking about a being who “lived” before he was “born of a woman.”
Besides all of that, this is a completely updated version of 1) Judean Jesuses based loosely on 2) Babylonian hero types such as Innana and Tammuz. Every update is going to reflect the current versions of “dead” and “risen” as well as completely change from an agricultural “dying and rising” god that stays dead for 6 months for agricultural reasons instead of providing salvation for souls by defeating “death” itself.
Well, if you would listen to what I say and not just repeat your unqualified assumptions, maybe you would know what it means. To die in all Christian theology means his body physically was killed. He was then physically resurrected. This does not occur in any Near Eastern mythology I know of except for Inanna, and then Attis and Eshmunn (both of whom have no attestation on this until after Christianity influenced them).
If you will not realize this basic concept, then you are just destined to forever lack any critical outlook on the Bible.
(1) There is no evidence of any range of “Judean Jesuses” that you claim (mostly because you don’t understand the basics of apocalyptic theology behind Zechariah)
(2) There is no evidence that Jesus was based on hero types like Inanna. You cannot show any link, and your only evidence comes from a vegetative yearly mourning ritual in Ezekiel, which has no counterpart in the New Testament. And, again, Tammuz is not dead. If you think he was, then you are simply ignorant.
The dying-rising god category is defunct. Modern scholars consider it nothing but parallelomania.
“To die in ALL Christian theology means”
How can this approach affect my arguments at all?
I listened to Bart Erhman’s talk on what Jesus did after the cross and before he rose. While it was interesting, unfortunately it was useless because it focused on creative works at least 50 and sometimes 500 years after Mark. Anything more than a day AFTER gMark is written is pretty much useless in trying to figure out what parts and pieces went into making gMark.
You are simply focused on the wrong end of this animal. Use you galactic brain on the right side of this issue and maybe, just maybe I would stop repeating the same things over and over! : D.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert