stephan huller

What does Jesus have to do with whether or not there was a historical Passion. Jesus didn't write the gospel. As such, the only question is whether Mark is telling the truth or not or what truth Mark was originally claiming to tell with his gospel. There were a variety of traditions and interpretations in earliest Christianity outside of the "Jesus Christ" tradition (which Origen incidentally repeatedly identifies as 'simple-minded').

The secret in my mind is to follow the thread which repeatedly emerges in Irenaeus's writings that the heretics who used only Mark said that Jesus and Christ were two different people. As I said whether or not Jesus was a human being has NOTHING to do with determining whether or not Christianity has legitimate historical grounds.

It was called 'Christianity' rather than 'Jesusanity.' There's a reason for that. It wasn't JUST a Jesus religion. We should all read Justin, Origen and the rest of the 'two advent' tradition in Christianity a little better before we pass judgement on 'what Christianity is' or who 'Christ is' supposed to be ...

charles

Didn't Neonplatonists also have an interest in numbers from Pythagoras?

maryhelena

Are you seriously suggesting that the gospel writers picked some nobody guy off the street, a guy who was crucified, and built their crucifixion/atonement scenario from that happenstance event? If that is the case they may as well have just opted for a symbolic or figurative 'crucifixion' - but then again, perhaps they needed some real blood spilled - or is that symbolic as well. Sounds to me that once one gets away from a literal crucifixion, that the crucifixion had some 'secret' meaning - then one may as well go the whole hog and dismiss christianity's claim of a historical Jesus anyway...
Secrets?

So, Stephen is going to tell what the 'real' christianaity is all about.....finding the 'truth' from reading and interpreting the interpretations upon interpretations upon interpretations upon interpretations that have gone on since the Passion that is not really a Passion but is - is something else?

maryhelena

That the NT storyline has been built upon the OT is I think generally accepted. That is not in contention. The issue is deciding what is theology, what is 'salvation' history, and what is actual history within the OT. One can assume that there is some historical core to some specific account within the pages of the OT - quite another thing to produce the historical evidence for one's assumption. If one is just assuming a historical core to the crossing of the sea - and one is stripping that down to - to what - that some people, somehow, managed to get to the other side of that sea - but we don't really know how - and it's the 'don't know' that we are going to use as a historical core......wishful thinking and crossing thumbs....

Transient

"What does Jesus have to do with whether or not there was a historical Passion"??? are you kidding?
Rip the "Jesus" character out of christianity and there is nothing at all left - nothing - not even a crumb.
Either there was a guy who raised people from the dead and raised himself as well etc or there was not. I am not interested in some guy called Joshua who did nothing much at all and got killed by the romans for whatever reason - not interested at all - might as well be classed as a myth mate.
A watered down guy who this stuff was built from is about as good as some guy called Robert the hooded man who was a shepherd in scotland, who didn't do anything except look after sheep,being called the sole source of all the Robin Hood stories - might as well be called complete myths.
Trying to find some scrappy little guy who may or may not have been the source of all this NT stuff but did none of it is sheer nonsense.

stephan huller

I disagree but I have a unique perspective on this. I see the Passion narrative as a retelling or reformulation of a historical event that occurred in a certain year of the reign of Tiberius (the Alexandrian tradition and its Sunday, March 25th date makes clear that it was 37 CE) according to traditional mystical interpretations associated with the Exodus story. According to my understanding 'Jesus' is now the angel Sariel. I think this is implied in the Marcionite title Chrestos. But as I said just moments ago in another post somewhere else - that's another story for another thread.

I will say it again, I don't think that Jesus was ever meant to be end of Christianity. A modern example: Islam can embrace Jesus as a herald for the one to come but the religion itself is about the one to come, not Jesus. The same formula was present three hundred years earlier in Manichaeanism and over a century earlier than that in Marcionitism (which I see as related to the original Christianity of Alexandria).

One of the most quoted scriptures in the earliest Church Fathers to help 'explain' the Passion is Psalm 2 (I just came across it again in Irenaeus's Proof of the Apostolic Preaching to help AA at another thread). All early Christians saw the Passion narrative reflected in these lines:

Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain?

The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the LORD and against his Christ

"Let us break their chains," they say, "and throw off their fetters."

The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them.

Then he rebukes them in his anger and terrifies them in his wrath, saying,

"I have installed my King on Zion, my holy hill."

I will proclaim the decree of the LORD: He said to me, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father.

Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession.

You will rule them with an iron scepter; you will dash them to pieces like pottery."

Therefore, you kings, be wise; be warned, you rulers of the earth.

Serve the LORD with fear and rejoice with trembling.

Kiss the Son, lest he be angry and you be destroyed in your way,
for his wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

I think there is more than enough evidence to suggest that the traditions outside of the Catholic Church understood TWO figures to be at the heart of Christianity - Jesus and Christ. Jesus 'the Lord' and Christ, the figure like Moses who ended up writing the new Torah, the Evangelium.

I think that the 'Jesus Christ' formula for Christianity was established in Europe and has nothing to do with the original Semitic formula which has Jesus as the מָלַח and someone else as the Christ. As such the historical nature of Jesus has about as much significance for Christianity as whether Mohammed really met Gabriel or whether a column of glory really accompanied the ancient Israelites.

Yes, its important but it doesn't affect the question of whether there really was a Exodus or whether there really was a Passion. Writers are artists and artists interpret. As Nietzsche once noted "The world revolves around the creators of new values; it revolves invisibly. But the people and the glory revolve around the comedians. Thus goes the world."

I don't think we need to dwell on the 'facts' of the historical events any more than we need to discover the real Mona Lisa in order to judge Da Vinci's greatness on the 'accuracy' of his ability to imitate reality.

There are higher forms of truth.

The artist in Ezra, Mark and Mohammed was to take clay and manufacture meaning. This kind of art can be divine and I for one take delight in appreciate in trying to figure out the artist's original vision.

There are more than enough people who - like a violent mob in the streets of Alexandria - want to tear down and expose old temples of dead gods. I for one wish the Serapeum had been avoided such attacks. I would have liked to see this art too.

Transient

oh well that explains it then - does not interest me at all.
Sounds like what you are proposing is that it is all hogwash.
All just fairy tales designed to keep the masses poor and under control.
We are best rid of all religions on this planet - time we moved on.
First thing they need to do is stop the tax benefits given to all religious groups.
Then have a world-wide ban on religious groups gaining any political power whatsoever.

semiopen

It seems that the meaning of Kabbalah is stretched in the initial post.

This is equating Kabbalah with Gematria. While this later is incorporated into the Kabbalah, it is questionable to say that the mysticism at the time under discussion can be called Kabbalah.

I don't mean to give the false impression that I'm sure about this, just that this is my understanding.

There was a discussion I had in another forum where the poster gave Christianity credit for inventing Kabbalah. He had replied to a post I'd made about women having their souls cleansed in the fires of Gehonim, where I mentioned this was Lurianic (16th century). As he didn't reply to my assertion that this was clearly Jewish, I thought the matter closed.

The assertion I see here may be what he was referring to. If Kabbalah is clearly the correct term here perhaps he was right after all.

charles

I still don't see why the number eight is so important for gnostics and Jewish people. I can see the number seven but why eight? Where is eight an important number in Judaism or Christianity?

charles

Again I ask - where do we find proof that the number 8 was important to Judaism?