jakejonesiv

Jesus had to be spiritual to the Pauline author in order to inhabit his body. Gal. 2:20. This is what is meant by "Christ in the flesh."

Later or concurrent. Christianity did not develop in a sequential manner from "Paul" to the gospels.

The gospels as a foursome are unknown before Ireneas.

I can name quite a few second century apologists who did quite well without Paul. Justin Martyr, for example, never so much as mentions his name.

Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv

Where does it say "born of a virgin" in the Pauline corpus? But that is not at all the 'rudimentary arc" of the Pauline Jesus.

The Pauline Jesus begins with a descending and ascending divine Redeemer, whose iconic works are appropriated by the initiates by faith and re-enactment ritual. It is dying and rising mystery god from the beginning. It later got progressively Judaized. This is the primary advantage that Christianity had over the competing mystery religions. By appropriating the Jewish scriptures, it gave itself the "street credibility" that the more ancient Jewish religion had going for it.

The Marcionite conception of Jesus, found in the earlier rescension of the Paulinics, is docetic.

"Paul" repeatedly says Jesus is a spirit which lives in believers.

The kata sarka question is utterly dispensed with once it is realized that all passages adduced occur in the catholic readaction layer of the paulinics.

It didn't say "brother of Jesus."

Why are you making up a VJHM theory, when an Historical Docetic view of Jesus has never been throughly explored. Isn't there alot of overlap?
Jesus is conceived of as a phantom, even a spirit, who descended in historical times, but was never a man, only the semblenace of one.

And to aquire flesh, he had to possess one of his victims initiates.

Jake Jones IV

Didymus

I agree. But can we add "or whatever account he heard" to the list? Is it possible for Paul to have elaborated his theology on nothing more a bare smattering of information about a crucifixion?

As things stand, at least on IIDB, there are two leading theories, HJ and MJ. The term "Historical Jesus" is usually taken to mean a human the major elements of whose biography resembles that of the Jesus of the gospels, with or without the supernatural elements. MJ is taken to mean a Jesus who did not live in the first century Palestine at all, but a Jesus whom Paul regarded as a spiritual/mythical being.

I'm adducing a third, hybrid explanation: The creation of the Jesus story was precipitated by neither man nor myth, but by an earthly event.

Didymus

Didymus

"Born of a woman...", Galatians 4:4. The point remains, of course.

Well, it's the rudimentary arc of human aspects of the Pauline Jesus.

It really doesn't matter. A docetic Jesus would have appeared as a human being living on earth and participating in human events.

And that "the spirit which lives in believers" was crucified? I'm working on the assumption that Paul viewed Jesus as a discrete entity, and I'll continue to do so unless persuaded to the contrary.

At what point should I request your permission to proceed?

And why, might I ask, are you advocating a Historical Docetic theory, when VMJ has never been thoroughly explored? :wave:

Perhaps. References?

Didymus

Sparrow

And now I need to revise it again in regard to JakeJonesIV's comments:

I’m sorry. I still wasn’t clear. What I meant was that Paul was acting as a result of whatever vision/hallucination/revelation/experience he had. Whether Christ was originally physical or never physical but purely spiritual didn’t matter to Paul.

This illustrates one of my concerns regarding deep analysis of these ancient texts. The pauline author certainly didn't have dozens of observers checking the meaning of every word and phrase to make sure exactly the right meaning, and only that meaning, would be communicated. Here in the space of a couple of days I've needed to update the above to accurately communicate my thoughts (which I fully admit may be wrong!) in the matter. Is it not possible that the pauline author occasionally used a word incorrectly or didn't quite fully and accurately communicate his own thought? I know full well that the text is all we really have, but it seems that sometimes we hang an awful lot on one word.

Add what you will, but as I understand it, the pauline author claims not to have learned any part of the story from any man. Shall we be pedantic and assume that he could have heard it from a woman or talking animal? I think not. Whatever experience Paul had that motivated him to end his persecutions and become a Christian was both personal and unsharable. I do not know how he connected that to any existing story about Jesus, though I think clearly he knew something of the Christian beliefs prior to his experience.

My only problem is the wide range of divergent beliefs that can go under each of the HJ/MJ umbrellae. An HJ without supernatural events is unsatisfying to the mainstream theist, though it seems historians have no major issue with such. And are not the later embellishments, whether natural or supernatural, mythical? That's why I'm coming to the conclusion that HJ/MJ doesn't tell me much. In order to understand someones existing position, I need more information.

Along those lines, please expound on what kind of event you're suggesting. Could there be a trilemma in your future?

Sparrow

I don't know that I said that the development of Christianity was in a sequential manner, only that the current consensus on dating has all other writings postdating Paul. Paul does not seem to require a physical Christ to have existed, thus all the documentation we have would suggest the need for a physical Christ to be a later development. Possibly independent as well. It's hard to know with no archaeological evidence of Christians in Palestine in the first century.

Relative to the gospels, I only meant that if one reads Paul, knowing the content of the gospel accounts, one may be tempted to read them in a way that was unintended by Paul, as he did not have those documents at hand. Similar to those who think Nostradamus foretold the World Trade Center attacks. If it it was so clear, how come there was no warning? A lot can be read into a document when you're armed with later knowledge.

Didymus

Actually, he didn't claim not to have learned "any part of the story" from any man. He said explicitly that he didn''t learn his gospel from any man, and to Paul that meant the Christian scheme of salvation, his kerygema. It would be a stretch to say that the bare fact of the crucifxion could be construed as part of his gospel, any more than could his account of his visit to the Pillars.

I actually expect the Talking Animal Gospel to be discovered any day now. But it will be condemned as gnostic and very, very late.

Naturalist reconstructions of Jesus' life are hard to come by. As far as I know, most, like Turton's, cannot find any history in the gospels to reconstruct. Everything is either derivative, haywire, an obvious fiction, or flat-out impossible.

The historians of whom you speak are either Christians or non-Christians who want a comfortable life and simply acquiesce to what they think is the scholarly consensus.

As to what theists might think, I'm not particularly interested, except for those Christian scholars who have proven to be excellent researchers and brilliant thinkers (just so long as their cherished assumptions are not at stake). Bart Ehrman comes to mind.

Yes, if you use "mythical" in the sense of fictitious. That's why I'm using the term "Virtual Mythical Jesus," awkward as that may sound. A twenty-year old event in Jerusalem, about which nothing is known is for all practical purposes mythical, even though it may actually have taken place.

I think everything that goes much beyond "crucifixion of an obscure, saintly man named Jesus" is a later embellishment. The Eucharist? A mythical embellishment. The Trial before the Sanhedrin? A pseudo-historical embellishment. The list includes just about everything that appears in all four gospels.

That's the problem, but I see it another way. Both both sides seem to think that anything that can't be ruled out ought to be ruled in if it makes their theory work. Thus we have great sweeping arguments from silence and from absence of evidence.

An unjust crucifixion of a saintly, obscure man named Jesus in the first part of the first century. Probably in Jerusalem. That's the only spin needed to fire up the engine.

Trilemma? I was hoping for a Trifecta.

Didymus

Sparrow

Maybe I'll write one. Perhaps I can find some old papyrus and learn how to make first century letter forms.


I saw Ehrman on the Colbert Report. If you can believe the words out of his mouth, he's an admitted agnostic. Which I think means 'I'm an atheist dependent on selling books to people who believe fervently in something I don't.' He seems to me to still cling to some presuppostions from his evangelical days, but a man's got to sell his books. He's got a family to feed.



Well that's what I think I keep saying. We don't know. Others like to assume what they wish to be true rather than search for evidence or wait for someone else to find it.

It seems we don't know that, but can only conject it to fill some of those silences you mention. Another James Dean spun into a larger than life legend by an early death, now out of control and creating its own reality.

jakejonesiv

"Born of a woman" is an orthodox corruption. The earliest texts say "made of a woman". See Ehrman, OCS.

A docetic being may be conceived to have participated in human events, or even believed to have done so. However, it could never have done such a thing in objective reality, because such things do not exist outside the imagination. So if you are looking for support for a "Historical Jesus," docetic phantoms aren't much help.

Yes. Paul was crucified too.

The author of Galatians viewed Jesus as a spirit. Does your definition of "discrete entity" exclude entities viewed as spirits?

As is I could stop you? I wouldn't if I could.

Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv

Sparrow, I believe you are right. There is no archeological evidence of Christians in 1st century Palestine. My guess is that there weren't any. ymmv.
OK, I see what you are saying. I have to agree. Very well put.

Jake Jones IV