Back to Lataster's work where he quotes some more scholars who, doubtless, our jesus freaks will denounce as "not real scholars" in spite of their credentials.
Quote:the more mainstream Biblical scholar Robert Funk recognizing that Paul “identified Jesus as a savior figure of the Hellenistic type, a dying/rising god, such as Osiris in the Isis cult” and noticing that “It was not the life and teachings of Jesus but the death of Jesus and his appearance to Paul in a vision… that became the focal points of Paul’s gospel”.[294] Other scholars acknowledging the similarities of Christianity and mystery religions include second century Christian Church Father Clement of Alexandria and Professor of Bible and Christian Studies Marvin W Meyer. [295] Hoffman also indicated that the knowledge of such parallels is “not new to scholarship” and that there are many similar myths and stories of earlier figures, who often were “dying, rising, saving”.[296] In a recent article, Biblical scholar Philip Davies theorises that a recognition that Jesus’ historicity is not certain would “nudge Jesus scholarship towards academic respectability”, finds attempts at discovering the ‘Historical Jesus’ to be “poor history”, and confirms the alleged mythic parallels:
Quote:Two articles in Is This Not the Carpenter? (by the two editors, in fact) amass a great deal of evidence that the profile of Jesus in the New Testament is composed of stock motifs drawn from all over the Mediterranean and Near Eastern world. These parallels are valid: in trying to provide an account of who and what Jesus was such resources were inevitably drawn upon, consciously or unconsciously by the gospel writers.
