-
Features
The Jewish Concept of a Messiah
- Thread starter SLD
- Start date
SLD
Contributor
Isn’t that Mormonism?
SLD
Contributor
Well such utopian ideals generally result in authoritarianism when people refuse to accept or conform. I think that Abbadon is willing to accept the world as we find it.
BTW, I don’t really mean to call you a motherfucker. I’m sure you are a nice guy. I just like that meme. It’s a funny scene.
SLD
Contributor
Hey, that’s true!
SLD
Contributor
So was having another online conversation about prophecies and we were talking about the prophecies in Daniel and after I explained to her how Jesus didn’t fulfill the prophecies and the bizarre mathematical legerdemain that people use to say he did, I simply asked her to please share me the prophecies from the OT.
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,701
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Is "THE Messiah" really a Christian invention?
not originally Jewish?
In the period before Jesus, the "Messiah" idea was not prominent in Judaism. The Apocalyptic idea was there, but the preachers of it were a tiny minority, and the followers of them were hard to find among the normal population. There were many apocalyptic preachers, but almost everyone dismissed them as nutcase fanatics. Very few Jews followed them, just like very few moderns follow the street preachers and cult leaders of today. Of course most of these have a few disciples, but they are vastly outnumbered by the millions who deride and ridicule and scorn them for their fanaticism and deception, and by other vast numbers who totally ignore them as irrelevant. Like the apocalyptic Jewish preachers 2000+ years ago -- however, these apocalypticists were very aggressive, and they successfully seized upon the new Jesus figure and turned him into their promised "Messiah."
Remove Jesus -> no more "Messiah" in Judaism
In other words, if the historical Jesus is removed from the picture, there is essentially no significant Jewish "Messiah" idea in Judaism. Today most Jews would not even know of the "Messiah" idea if there had been no 1st-century Jesus, who almost is the origin of this idea in Judaism. What happened is that a small minority of the Judaean population, mostly apocalypticists, noticed something in Jesus which needed to be explained, and they took the earlier "Messiah" word and attached it to Jesus, to explain him as a fulfillment of earlier prophecy in some sense. They needed some explanation for Jesus, or a place to put him within their religious scheme. They combined the "Messiah" title along with some heroic and suffering-servant ideas, plus the "King" idea to produce the new "Messiah" expectation.
This is how Judaism was transformed into a religion about a coming "Messiah" to save the world. The vast majority of Jews rejected Jesus as being this "Messiah," but still this idea became very prominent from that point onward, so that into the following centuries many Jews began asking, "When will the real Messiah come?" But in the early 1st century very few were asking any such thing. It was not an important part of Judaism at that time. There's no indication of it until the time of the Talmud centuries later, after the controversy over the Jesus event had been going and Jews had been on the defensive against the growing Christian threat to them.
There's much Jewish literature in this period -- just prior to Jesus. The Dead Sea Scrolls, e.g. There's the "Righteous Teacher" and other savior-type language to be found. But nothing about a unique "Messiah" who would save the world. In 2nd Maccabees there's language about being persecuted in this life and dying for Yahweh and being rewarded in the next life, but no reference to a coming Messiah to save Jews from the Romans or foreign oppressors. The Messiah idea which got applied to Jesus probably was not about "the next life," but about a coming conqueror to lead Jews to victory over Rome in this life, in the next few weeks or months.
In the Book of Daniel there is reference to a "Messiah" and also to the Son of Man, who are 2 separate figures. And in Daniel it's the Son of Man who is the real conqueror-hero-savior of some kind, whereas the "Messiah" is a common priest of minor importance, being one of hundreds of such priests, in a succession of them going way back.
Nothing about the coming hero "Messiah" in Jewish Literature
If the "Messiah" idea is really basic to Judaism, Jews of the period should have mentioned it. Like Philo of Alexandria and Josephus who say nothing about this idea as part of Jewish tradition. Also there's no mention of a "Messiah" savior-hero in the many apocalyptic writings, like Enoch -- i.e., not until after 100 AD or later. There's no Jewish quote about "the Messiah" hero-conqueror until centuries later in the Talmud, after Jewish rabbis had reflected on it for 2 hundred years and decided to adopt the new "Messiah" idea into their religion.
Possibly after 100 AD there were other hero figures who received the title "Messiah" -- although there's no way to know if this title really was used about them at that time, rather than the title being bestowed upon them centuries later (in the Talmud). It is said that Rabbi Akiva identified bar-Kochba as "Messiah," but we have only the Talmud as the source for this. There are no writings from Akiva, and all we can know is that he praised bar-Kochba as a hero divinely appointed. Though possibly the word "Messiah" by that time had become transformed to its new meaning as a special hero-conqueror-savior, 100 years after the time of Jesus, from whom the new idea originated.
Of course the word "Messiah" existed earlier, but it was not a prominent part of Jewish tradition. Either the King or a Priest was anointed, as a ritual proceeding for them to assume office, and any such person was a "Messiah" among many others. All the kings and priests, both good and evil (and at least half of them were evil if we believe the scriptures) were "Messiah" persons properly speaking -- nothing all that special about them. In some cases the "Messiah" was a special person or hero, like King Cyrus of Persia, chosen for a special mission. But most of the Messiahs were of minor importance.
In the original meaning the "Messiah" was not necessarily anyone heroic doing fantastic deeds or saving the world or the nation from "The Sons of Darkness" or "the Evil Empire" or "Darth Vader" etc. This new conqueror-hero "Messiah" idea did not exist in Judaism until after Jesus. Though the Qumran Community did see a cataclysmic fantastic war coming ("Sons of Light" vs. "Sons of Darkness"), there is no special heroic "Messiah" conqueror leading the charge.
And we should ask: Why did Judaism change like this following the time of Jesus?
And -- why can't there be a discussion of the Jewish "Messiah" idea without always bringing Jesus into it, as though there's no way to talk about it without using him as the example? and then always saying that surely he was not the real Messiah?
not originally Jewish?
If/when they do, their main point will probably be that Jesus was not the Messiah. This whole topic-- the posts going back to the beginning -- is mostly about whether Jesus could be "the Messiah" with an emphasis that he was not. It is difficult to find any significance to the Jewish "Messiah" idea without relating it to Jesus and whether or not he really was this "Messiah."Arrrgh.
Don’t we have some Jewish folks on the board who can comment on the OP?
In the period before Jesus, the "Messiah" idea was not prominent in Judaism. The Apocalyptic idea was there, but the preachers of it were a tiny minority, and the followers of them were hard to find among the normal population. There were many apocalyptic preachers, but almost everyone dismissed them as nutcase fanatics. Very few Jews followed them, just like very few moderns follow the street preachers and cult leaders of today. Of course most of these have a few disciples, but they are vastly outnumbered by the millions who deride and ridicule and scorn them for their fanaticism and deception, and by other vast numbers who totally ignore them as irrelevant. Like the apocalyptic Jewish preachers 2000+ years ago -- however, these apocalypticists were very aggressive, and they successfully seized upon the new Jesus figure and turned him into their promised "Messiah."
Remove Jesus -> no more "Messiah" in Judaism
In other words, if the historical Jesus is removed from the picture, there is essentially no significant Jewish "Messiah" idea in Judaism. Today most Jews would not even know of the "Messiah" idea if there had been no 1st-century Jesus, who almost is the origin of this idea in Judaism. What happened is that a small minority of the Judaean population, mostly apocalypticists, noticed something in Jesus which needed to be explained, and they took the earlier "Messiah" word and attached it to Jesus, to explain him as a fulfillment of earlier prophecy in some sense. They needed some explanation for Jesus, or a place to put him within their religious scheme. They combined the "Messiah" title along with some heroic and suffering-servant ideas, plus the "King" idea to produce the new "Messiah" expectation.
This is how Judaism was transformed into a religion about a coming "Messiah" to save the world. The vast majority of Jews rejected Jesus as being this "Messiah," but still this idea became very prominent from that point onward, so that into the following centuries many Jews began asking, "When will the real Messiah come?" But in the early 1st century very few were asking any such thing. It was not an important part of Judaism at that time. There's no indication of it until the time of the Talmud centuries later, after the controversy over the Jesus event had been going and Jews had been on the defensive against the growing Christian threat to them.
There's much Jewish literature in this period -- just prior to Jesus. The Dead Sea Scrolls, e.g. There's the "Righteous Teacher" and other savior-type language to be found. But nothing about a unique "Messiah" who would save the world. In 2nd Maccabees there's language about being persecuted in this life and dying for Yahweh and being rewarded in the next life, but no reference to a coming Messiah to save Jews from the Romans or foreign oppressors. The Messiah idea which got applied to Jesus probably was not about "the next life," but about a coming conqueror to lead Jews to victory over Rome in this life, in the next few weeks or months.
In the Book of Daniel there is reference to a "Messiah" and also to the Son of Man, who are 2 separate figures. And in Daniel it's the Son of Man who is the real conqueror-hero-savior of some kind, whereas the "Messiah" is a common priest of minor importance, being one of hundreds of such priests, in a succession of them going way back.
Nothing about the coming hero "Messiah" in Jewish Literature
If the "Messiah" idea is really basic to Judaism, Jews of the period should have mentioned it. Like Philo of Alexandria and Josephus who say nothing about this idea as part of Jewish tradition. Also there's no mention of a "Messiah" savior-hero in the many apocalyptic writings, like Enoch -- i.e., not until after 100 AD or later. There's no Jewish quote about "the Messiah" hero-conqueror until centuries later in the Talmud, after Jewish rabbis had reflected on it for 2 hundred years and decided to adopt the new "Messiah" idea into their religion.
Possibly after 100 AD there were other hero figures who received the title "Messiah" -- although there's no way to know if this title really was used about them at that time, rather than the title being bestowed upon them centuries later (in the Talmud). It is said that Rabbi Akiva identified bar-Kochba as "Messiah," but we have only the Talmud as the source for this. There are no writings from Akiva, and all we can know is that he praised bar-Kochba as a hero divinely appointed. Though possibly the word "Messiah" by that time had become transformed to its new meaning as a special hero-conqueror-savior, 100 years after the time of Jesus, from whom the new idea originated.
Of course the word "Messiah" existed earlier, but it was not a prominent part of Jewish tradition. Either the King or a Priest was anointed, as a ritual proceeding for them to assume office, and any such person was a "Messiah" among many others. All the kings and priests, both good and evil (and at least half of them were evil if we believe the scriptures) were "Messiah" persons properly speaking -- nothing all that special about them. In some cases the "Messiah" was a special person or hero, like King Cyrus of Persia, chosen for a special mission. But most of the Messiahs were of minor importance.
In the original meaning the "Messiah" was not necessarily anyone heroic doing fantastic deeds or saving the world or the nation from "The Sons of Darkness" or "the Evil Empire" or "Darth Vader" etc. This new conqueror-hero "Messiah" idea did not exist in Judaism until after Jesus. Though the Qumran Community did see a cataclysmic fantastic war coming ("Sons of Light" vs. "Sons of Darkness"), there is no special heroic "Messiah" conqueror leading the charge.
And we should ask: Why did Judaism change like this following the time of Jesus?
And -- why can't there be a discussion of the Jewish "Messiah" idea without always bringing Jesus into it, as though there's no way to talk about it without using him as the example? and then always saying that surely he was not the real Messiah?
Last edited:
Jesus has a limited role in the development of the doctrine of the Messiah. His role is to bring the heathen into Judaism. The full development of the Messianic doctrine is not merely theologic, but includes the political. This political dimension was not available to Jesus. The people would not rise with him, and even if they did, the Romans would crush them. He had to defer to the future for the full development of the Messianic doctrine. It is Marx who fulfills the political function of the Messiah. It was not possible for Marx to explicitly connect his Messianic function to Judaism, but over time this is being made more and more explicit. The destiny of mankind is to establish the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth on the basis of universal communism. This is the essence of Judaism and its great revolutionary expositors: Moses, Jesus and Marx.
ideologyhunter
Contributor
Are you allowing 2000 years for this great dispensation to arrive? JC's double millenium expires in another 8 years or so. Will another one be necessary? Some of us at least hope to see the series finale of Missing You.
SLD
Contributor
Ok. Didn’t realize Marx was a messiah but it kinda makes sense.
IAE. I thought I’d share another discussion I’ve had on Facebook about this. It started out about scripture and then went into the prophecies of Daniel and others. I quote her and my responses follow. I invited her here, but we will see.
WRT Daniel, even you’ve got to admit that the prophecy went unfulfilled by Jesus. The Antichrist didn’t come. The sacrifices didn’t stop until Jerusalem’s destruction 37 years later +/-. It was supposed to happen within a 7 year period of his existence. Furthermore, it in no way indicates that the messiah would be crucified and then rise from the dead, much less disappear for 2000 years after that.
With respect to the OT, most of the so called prophecies are just vague assertions that are impossible to pin down and can be interpreted anyway you want. Nothing in Genesis or Exodus is really prophecy. It’s just the stories that they told that were eventually written down.
Isaiah is prophetic, but it’s about a coming restoration of the Davidian line of Kings. Not the coming of a demigod. Jesus obviously didn’t fulfill it. And the word Almah means young woman, not virgin. Virgin births in the ancient world are a dime a dozen, including Augustus and Alexander the Great, supposedly - not to mention most other demigods like Hercules, Perseus etc. Zeus managed to seduce a lot of mortals. You don’t believe them, you shouldn’t believe Jesus was either. And the pierced for our transgressions line certainly doesn’t predict a dying and rising god even if it does predict a death. Lots of Israelites were crucified besides Jesus. With respect to Bethlehem and out of Egypt lines, the birth stories don’t make sense and there’s absolutely no evidence the requirement to return to your hometown to participate in the census. That would make no sense in an empire where people were scattered around the empire. Patently absurd. Herod’s slaughter of the innocents is also unreported in other sources that are very critical of him. The birth stories seems written to fulfill the prophecies sort of.
As for God’s promise to David, it didn’t exactly work out. His line was overthrown by the Babylonians and Persians and has not been restored in at least 2500 years. Again, Jesus didn’t fulfill it.
As for me, nothing particularly bad happened. I didn’t wake up one day and say I wasn’t a believer. But years ago I did get challenged by a religious girl that I liked that I didn’t know enough and that it was important for me to understand it better. She was right. I read the Bible that summer. I just didn’t stop there. I read a good book by a rabbinical scholar about Christianity to get a different perspective and more by Christian scholars and then continued to read. In all I’d say it took about 12 years, and up to 40+ books, before I realized I just couldn’t believe it any more and that the concept of god was unnecessary. And yes, I do have a fairly good liberal arts education with a scientific background. I had to take courses in religion and philosophy. Very important.
The prophecy in Daniel says the Messiah will stop the temple sacrifices half way through his “week”, meaning 7 years. That simply did not happen. Jesus’s ministry didn’t even last 7 years. Even if it is referring to the antichrist, it doesn’t say that, and it still didn’t happen. Actually the whole prophecy is gibberish, talking about adding several sevens to 62 sevens, and something is supposed to happen but it’s unclear. And as pointed out above by another, modern Christians are basing their prophecy dates based on a Calendar that wasn’t even invented until the 1500’s. Even the math makes no sense. Cyrus decreed that the Jews would be allowed to return to Jerusalem and rebuild in 538 BC. Daniel says it that from that day that the decree went out there’d be a period of “seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’” This means at most a period 49 years, plus 420 years. That means 55BC, not 33 AD. It says he will be a ruler, Jesus never ruled. It does say that he will be killed, but says nothing about his resurrection. You can claim all the prophecy you want about Jesus’s death. They say nothing about a resurrection for sure. Frankly all of the prophecies you claim (and you really aren’t quoting them) are not really prophecies. The psalms are not meant to be prophecies. They don’t make any predictions about what is to come. Isaiah makes some prophecies and Daniel makes others, but they are all rather vague and none of them predict this dying and rising savior god. You’ve yet to quote one prophecy about that. Plus a real god would have made it absolutely clear. If Daniel was a real prophecy it would have predicted what would happen when the Seleucid king invaded Egypt. It was clearly written during the Maccabean revolt of the 160’s. A real god would have been absolutely clear about exactly when Jesus would arrive and made it clear that he would be killed and rise again and then disappear for a few thousand years before he returned a second time. Jesus utterly fails as a messiah. Like many other Jewish people of that time frame he was simply killed for challenging the Roman rule of Judea. They were all “pierced”.
You’re picking and choosing amongst scattered verses here and there and saying that they’re prophecies. I’m sorry, it’s absurd. Christians love to tell Jews how they don’t understand their own religion and scripture. It’s the ultimate hubris. Genesis 3 contains no serious prophecies. Christians are forcing it, when it says nothing of the sort. Read the entirety of Psalm 16. It has nothing to do with any kind of prophecy but of how a faithful man is protected by god. You’re picking out one verse and saying it’s a prophecy when there’s just no reason to do so. Using the psalms as prophecies makes no sense as they were composed before the fall of Jerusalem. Isaiah is the first real prophecy of a messiah, and as any Jew will tell you, it’s about re establishing the Davidian line of kings on earth, not in heaven. Jesus simply doesn’t fulfill the prophecies and it’s painfully obvious that he is just another dying and rising savior god as many others were from that time frame.
IAE. I thought I’d share another discussion I’ve had on Facebook about this. It started out about scripture and then went into the prophecies of Daniel and others. I quote her and my responses follow. I invited her here, but we will see.
WRT Daniel, even you’ve got to admit that the prophecy went unfulfilled by Jesus. The Antichrist didn’t come. The sacrifices didn’t stop until Jerusalem’s destruction 37 years later +/-. It was supposed to happen within a 7 year period of his existence. Furthermore, it in no way indicates that the messiah would be crucified and then rise from the dead, much less disappear for 2000 years after that.
With respect to the OT, most of the so called prophecies are just vague assertions that are impossible to pin down and can be interpreted anyway you want. Nothing in Genesis or Exodus is really prophecy. It’s just the stories that they told that were eventually written down.
Isaiah is prophetic, but it’s about a coming restoration of the Davidian line of Kings. Not the coming of a demigod. Jesus obviously didn’t fulfill it. And the word Almah means young woman, not virgin. Virgin births in the ancient world are a dime a dozen, including Augustus and Alexander the Great, supposedly - not to mention most other demigods like Hercules, Perseus etc. Zeus managed to seduce a lot of mortals. You don’t believe them, you shouldn’t believe Jesus was either. And the pierced for our transgressions line certainly doesn’t predict a dying and rising god even if it does predict a death. Lots of Israelites were crucified besides Jesus. With respect to Bethlehem and out of Egypt lines, the birth stories don’t make sense and there’s absolutely no evidence the requirement to return to your hometown to participate in the census. That would make no sense in an empire where people were scattered around the empire. Patently absurd. Herod’s slaughter of the innocents is also unreported in other sources that are very critical of him. The birth stories seems written to fulfill the prophecies sort of.
As for God’s promise to David, it didn’t exactly work out. His line was overthrown by the Babylonians and Persians and has not been restored in at least 2500 years. Again, Jesus didn’t fulfill it.
As for me, nothing particularly bad happened. I didn’t wake up one day and say I wasn’t a believer. But years ago I did get challenged by a religious girl that I liked that I didn’t know enough and that it was important for me to understand it better. She was right. I read the Bible that summer. I just didn’t stop there. I read a good book by a rabbinical scholar about Christianity to get a different perspective and more by Christian scholars and then continued to read. In all I’d say it took about 12 years, and up to 40+ books, before I realized I just couldn’t believe it any more and that the concept of god was unnecessary. And yes, I do have a fairly good liberal arts education with a scientific background. I had to take courses in religion and philosophy. Very important.
The prophecy in Daniel says the Messiah will stop the temple sacrifices half way through his “week”, meaning 7 years. That simply did not happen. Jesus’s ministry didn’t even last 7 years. Even if it is referring to the antichrist, it doesn’t say that, and it still didn’t happen. Actually the whole prophecy is gibberish, talking about adding several sevens to 62 sevens, and something is supposed to happen but it’s unclear. And as pointed out above by another, modern Christians are basing their prophecy dates based on a Calendar that wasn’t even invented until the 1500’s. Even the math makes no sense. Cyrus decreed that the Jews would be allowed to return to Jerusalem and rebuild in 538 BC. Daniel says it that from that day that the decree went out there’d be a period of “seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’” This means at most a period 49 years, plus 420 years. That means 55BC, not 33 AD. It says he will be a ruler, Jesus never ruled. It does say that he will be killed, but says nothing about his resurrection. You can claim all the prophecy you want about Jesus’s death. They say nothing about a resurrection for sure. Frankly all of the prophecies you claim (and you really aren’t quoting them) are not really prophecies. The psalms are not meant to be prophecies. They don’t make any predictions about what is to come. Isaiah makes some prophecies and Daniel makes others, but they are all rather vague and none of them predict this dying and rising savior god. You’ve yet to quote one prophecy about that. Plus a real god would have made it absolutely clear. If Daniel was a real prophecy it would have predicted what would happen when the Seleucid king invaded Egypt. It was clearly written during the Maccabean revolt of the 160’s. A real god would have been absolutely clear about exactly when Jesus would arrive and made it clear that he would be killed and rise again and then disappear for a few thousand years before he returned a second time. Jesus utterly fails as a messiah. Like many other Jewish people of that time frame he was simply killed for challenging the Roman rule of Judea. They were all “pierced”.
You’re picking and choosing amongst scattered verses here and there and saying that they’re prophecies. I’m sorry, it’s absurd. Christians love to tell Jews how they don’t understand their own religion and scripture. It’s the ultimate hubris. Genesis 3 contains no serious prophecies. Christians are forcing it, when it says nothing of the sort. Read the entirety of Psalm 16. It has nothing to do with any kind of prophecy but of how a faithful man is protected by god. You’re picking out one verse and saying it’s a prophecy when there’s just no reason to do so. Using the psalms as prophecies makes no sense as they were composed before the fall of Jerusalem. Isaiah is the first real prophecy of a messiah, and as any Jew will tell you, it’s about re establishing the Davidian line of kings on earth, not in heaven. Jesus simply doesn’t fulfill the prophecies and it’s painfully obvious that he is just another dying and rising savior god as many others were from that time frame.
.
ideologyhunter
Contributor
Yeah, refresh my memory...which communist societies didn't become rigid police states? Which theocracies didn't trample on human rights and cripple the human spirit with insane orthodoxy and bigotry? I'd no sooner want to be the guy sanding down the corns on Kim Jong Un's feet than the keeper of zucchettos for the pope.
Until the proletariat embraces self-control, reason and moral autonomy, mankind will exist under state capitalism and fascism. The way forward is altruistic communism. The liberal bourgeoisie resists this by evoking the bogeyman of state and church oppression. They would have mankind remain forever in the twilight zone of state capitalism and fascism. The religion of the future and altruistic communism work in harmony to overcome all oppression, including liberal oppression.
ideologyhunter
Contributor
So, please start naming any communist society or theocracy that a person with an independent spirit and a brain capable of critical thinking would choose to live in. Go on, I have a few minutes.
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,701
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Who were the "dying and rising" savior gods?
Where is the evidence that they rose again?
It is pseudo-scientific to equate someone who never existed (or for whom evidence is lacking) with someone who is established as a real historical person for whom we have more than the normal needed evidence for his unusual acts.
Where is the evidence that they rose again?
What "many others"? There were no other historical figures in the written record who reportedly resurrected after having died. The "dying and rising" gods either were not real historical persons at all, or the ones which were historical are obscured by all the legends evolving over many centuries of storytelling -- unlike the case of Jesus in the 1st century, for whom we have at least 5 good 1st-century sources which attest to his resurrection after he had been killed. I.e., sources similar to those we have for most of our ancient history events, which typically are recorded for us in sources 50-100 years later. So the evidence for the Jesus Resurrection meets the critical standards necessary for establishing ancient history facts. Whereas there is no such evidence for the "dying and rising" gods of the pagan myths.
It is pseudo-scientific to equate someone who never existed (or for whom evidence is lacking) with someone who is established as a real historical person for whom we have more than the normal needed evidence for his unusual acts.
The Kingdom of Heaven on Earth on the basis of universal communism is the goal of human evolution. It is something to be built. It is the product of work. It has its precursors in previous systems, but it is unique unto itself. Earlier systems contributed toward its realization, but they are but pale reflections of what is to come.
ideologyhunter
Contributor
In that case, fuck all of it. I'm sending out for pizza.
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
I will go to sleep tonight with a really big grin on my face.
BTW, do you keep kosher?
SLD
Contributor
Richard Carrier says there’s a plethora of them: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/13890
And he lists specifically the following: Hercules, Zalmoxis, Romulus, Osiris, Dionysus, Inanna, Adonis, Asclepius, Baal, and Tammuz.
He does dismiss Mithras.