gurugeorge

Oh I think it is, remember we have a lot of our preconceptions formed about Gnosticism from the orthodox heresiologists. That doesn't mean what they said is all rubbish - at the very least, their categorisation provides some sort of filing cabinet for thought - but it does mean that when we find a hoard of treasure like the Nag Hammadi texts, we need to be wary of heresiologists' filters, and try to look at the texts afresh (a wonderful opportunity, one would have thought), and let the Gnostics speak for themselves (now we have more material to triangulate with). More broadly, there's potential explanatory power in treating mystical experience as a brain phenomenon, and comparing mysticisms and Gnosticisms and other -isms by that standard.

Sort of. Except, the Gnostic will have a real reward in the sense of something absolutely amazing that happens to them experientially, in life right now (supposing a few months or years of work); the believer will have merely comfort in belief about a future reward. Don't know if that passes muster as "real" for you

OK, so bear in mind I'm talking about the earliest Christians here, especially gentile (Paul-seeded) Christians pre-Diaspora - many of whom, incidentally, might well have been familiar with local Mystery Religions too, and in the absence of guidance from a then-nonexistent orthodoxy, some of them would naturally have syncretised what Paul had taught them with other religions, especially Mystery Religions (the closest analogue of what the Jewish proto-Gnostics were coming up with, to anything already extant in the Pagan world).

These people wouldn't necessarily be thinking of it in terms of trying to shut down the voice in the head (although wherever you find admonitions to silence, that's likely); that's more commonly an Asian practice (though a later development in the West). But the effect of what they were doing would be the same, yes - devotional and occult practices are entryways to the same kind of result as the more analytical "meditational" methods. Their devotion was almost certainly to a supposed superhero-like Jesus who they supposed had historically sojourned on Earth not long before their time, but via contemplation of that imaginary friend, via love for that entity and striving to attain communication with him, they attained mystical results (just as orthodox might sometimes do, too, even today).

But mystical results per se (as strictly defined) are a bit rare; more often, from such devotional practices, intensely worked, people get the visionary results. Look at philosopherjay's analysis in one of the other recent threads, of the last supper reference in Paul - as being about Paul reminding the congregation that he had given them a "method" a while ago - or maybe actually about Paul reminding the congregation that Christ himself had on that night given them (Paul and the congregation) the method THROUGH Paul (i.e. some kind of mediumship business).

Similarly, in Corinthians 12-13 we see a whole plethora of mystical and occult practices that Paul enumerates as stuff they (his Christians) do.

I think I've stated already that it's not amalgamation, the strong humanisation and historicization of the myth in orthodoxy is a subsequent development OUT OF the mystic school, partly accident (natural variation of interpretation) and, later on, partly because it formed part of an ideological strategy to bring the variegated movement to some sort of order. (i.e. Apostolic Succession brings the human being of Jesus - for he had some - more into focus in the story, the myth - and the function of this is to fool people into thinking "our" bishops are descended from people who knew Christ himself while he sojourned on Earth. The trick is to emphasise gospels with the trope that the earliest apostles knew Jesus personally, hearkened to his words. Whereas in fact, the earliest apostles were mere visionaries who spoke of a historical spiritual/superhero-type god-man Jesus, but had never claimed to know him, merely to have found out about him in Scripture - like the Jerusalem apostles - and to have spirit communication from him, to have realised their oneness with him - like Paul).

You're trying to convince me Paul wasn't a proto-Gnostic by quoting me "We know that we all have knowledge"???

Look further down at v10:-

For if any man see thee
which hast knowledge sit at
meat in the idol's temple, shall
not the conscience of him
which is weak be emboldened
to eat those things which are
offered to idols

I think that may be because you're still thinking of orthodoxy as something early. But remember Bauer: the evidence is that early=variegated, and minus orthodoxy. All the places the orthodox evidence talks about, wherever they go - Edessa, Egypt, Asia Minor, Rome, etc., they find heresy already established. Well, somebody's been busy IN THE ABSENCE OF ORTHODOXY, eh?

The difference is between the recommendation of belief in the salvific value of an historical salvific event, on the one hand, and the exhortation to undertake direct experience of the Divine (as being the salvific event itself), on the other.

The orthodox trust is that other people aren't talking bollocks (because, as per the Apostolic Succession idea, they were close to the god-man, heard his words, were affected by the putative events), but the Gnostic's trust is the sort of trust that comes from having direct acquaintance of something. You may have trust/faith in a guidebook about Naples because it's published by a major, trusted publisher, and it's just had a rave review in the Times; or you may have trust/faith in your ability to navigate your way round Naples because you've been there on holiday a few times.

You don't have to do anything to be his son - BECAUSE YOU ARE ALREADY GOD'S SON, only you are ignorant of it, he sends "son spirit" into you, and you then awaken, and you see your father. Like, imagine if you were a little slave boy about to be sold in the market, and you see a bloke wandering by, something in you has a leap of recognition and cries out "Father!", the old geezer turns round, recognises you as his long-lost son, and buys you from the slaver. Much joy and relief all round! That's a sense of what "redemption" means here.

Proto-gnosticism, you see? The redemption in this sense has meaning in terms of a theology that seems very much like a nascent form of what would develop and flower into Marcionism and other "heretical" variants like Gnosticism - the sense that this world isn't all it's cracked up to be, and that something in us wants out, wants free, and that something "belongs" to another, higher spiritual sphere. (But of course, one can say even that this myth is universal and is clothed in different garments in different cultures.)

And if I could find any evidence of a "particular man", I'd think that was pretty plausible. But I can't. All I find evidence of is a story that could just as easily mean "they thought that a spiritual element personified itself in a particular man".

The imitation, I agree was part of it, but the desire to connect was paramount.

Something like the former, yes. I think this type of organisation (in sociological terms), kind of like circles of people studying occult and mystical topics, was pretty common. Garth Fowden argues that Hermetic circles were like this - mostly well-to-do folks studying occult and mystical topics, based on a system that was mostly Greek but also partly Egyptian, based on the similarity between two important deities in these cultures. If you look at that early apologist, I forget his name, the one who offers an apology that makes Christianity seem almost wholly like a philosophy? Consider also the fact that Plotinus wrote against the Gnostics. There's no evidence of a working class origin to this business - on the contrary, it's a middle class pursuit, through and through, so far as we can tell from the beginning. The Jerusalem people, if they were indeed Scripture-hounds, if Mark indeed was learned enough to do Midrash, then we are dealing with cultured, educated people, and probably people with leisure time on their hands.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. There's nothing about a carpenter in Paul, so why should we be reading Paul through the lens of later stuff that mentions carpenters? There's also no martyrdom recommended to the apostles on the night of Jesus' arrest, is there? (Actually the attitudes exemplified by all parties concerned vary in the synoptics.)

No, what's completely expected under those circumstances is for the whole thing to fade into obscurity

Nobody's throwing the gospels out, least of all because of the impossible feats. The gospels are evidence, and the impossible feats are evidence. The problem is, evidence of what? Again, it seems to me you simply assume an euhemerist origin to what is basically a fantastic tale about an entity that is part divine and part man.

Plus the gospels didn't exist for the first 70 or so years of this movement's existence, so we have precious little insight into what was going on then doctrinally, or how the movement was then. Paul (if the scholarship is right) is one of the earliest glimpses. Let's see what he says for himself (if possible, shorn of Catholic interpolation).

Oh there would have been theology attached to the discovery, no doubt - it's just that we can't be sure what it was. All we have is the "according to Scripture", so we can guess it must have been some combination of the obvious - Isaiah, for instance - with some hidden stuff, perhaps numerological or gematria-like. Matthew later makes some of the same connections - only he interprets the events retroactively as a fulfillment of Scripture, instead of, as earlier envisioned, Scripture being somehow an encrypted report of the events.

That's sort of about right, from what I can gather - so long as you bear in mind also that these were also practical pursuits. Philosophy in those days mean more of a way of life. Plotinus was an active mystic, and people learned mystical ascent practices from him - that's precisely what his philosophy recommends. Gnosticism was experiential also. So yes, Platonism, but Platonism lived, not merely understood as a doctrine and jabbered about.

It's difficult to pin this down just because the materials (mentions of the earliest theory and praxis) are so scant. Doherty goes into it at some length, my cobbled-together version is somewhat similar but a bit different too. By analogy with how many occultists - often themselves inspired by the same Middle-to-Neo-Platonic base philosophy - have spoken of these matters throughout the centuries, they would have thought of it as something like this: the material event was something like when you put a crystal into a solution and the solution crystallises, only in this case the "solution" must be thought of as the fundamental "stuff" of creation. The archons (which I think actually includes the material rulers of the age AND the demons that rule through them) were lying in wait for the traditional kingly Messiah (also, in the more ancient traditions, a divine god-man, be it noted, only even more superhero-like, quite "muscular"). They had plans ready to foil his coming. But the Messiah fooled them by coming in total obscurity, as a humble nobody. This meant the archons didn't have enough "time to react", so to speak (had they known, "they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory"). Either lack time to react, or something of that nature, meant that Christ could get on with the business of cheating death without interference, and by that magickal act redeem us all (i.e. sort of "open a channel" between ourselves and our inner Christ - cognate with the indwelling of the "son spirit" above.) Does it make sense? Kind of, if you squint at it, and think about the sciological and philosophical contexts. So the key is that the Messiah has already been and done his work, and it was spiritual, inaugurating a new age, albeit more in the sense of opening up a fresh access of people to the possibility of discovering their true nature - no point looking for him in the future represented in some Joe Bloggs to come, he's already been. This is just how it looks on the evidence in Paul. Hebrews shows something related - in fact, it seems to show more of the earlier Jerusalem idea, where the Messiah they see in Scripture emphasises the High Priest side of the Messiah's job (i.e., the more spiritual side).

Oh there were persecutions, and tragic enough, but as best I can see from scholarly to-s and fro-s, the numbers have been exaggerated, and relatively quite a bit later than these origins we are talking about. At any rate, the majority of Christians wouldn't have martyred themselves, since the idea would have been absurd to most non-orthodox Christians ("heretics", including Gnostics and Marcionites, but also many other variations on the theme).

Excuse me? He was born of a virgin who was impregnated by a spirit!!!

Hehe, it's been a fun discussion that's turned into a mini-monster! I've pretty much exhausted my quiver now - you're welcome to the last word

(Later note: through all this I think it's important to remember that in the early timeframe, and well into the late 2nd century, this is still a very small cult, with scattered cells and few nerve centres, but we're only talking in the few thousands in total, if that. IIRC it doesn't become a mass movement until Constantine, really, and only then because of Imperial inducements making it fashionable to become a Christian - again, mostly a well-to-do pursuit, but it's true that by that time the movement also attracted the lower orders, because it did indeed provide an alternative social network with benefits for them. It's in the transition from middle-class cult to mass movement that the mystical and occult vestiges are finally relegated to the fringe.)

DramaQ

Agreed.

In fact, it’s actually kind of amusing when you consider that the author(s) of GMark, who were so skilled at irony, would themselves be the victim of the greatest irony: That their work - which to me scoffs at those who “miss the point” of the mystical Christ and foolishly focus on the physical Christ – is itself responsible for the proliferation of the physical one.

To me, Paul’s “acknowledgement” of the priority of the Jerusalem groups reads pretty nudge-nudge-wink-wink. Like “yeah you were first, but I got it RIGHT.”

I am kind of liking Joe Wallack’s assertion that Paul’s innovation is the notion of the crucifixion itself.

DQ

maryhelena

So, it boiled down to a battle of the visions then? Or did they simply draw straws? Or a consensus? But who decides which bits to take out and which bits to leave in - Paul? But why should he be the decision maker, why should anyone give up their own visionary insights to some newcomer who thought he had the latest update? Methinks that newcomers trying to take over are not usually given a welcome mat....

Of course, if one sidesteps Paul's story that there were others before him - and see Paul starting out on his own re his own vision - and then got others interested in his vision - then OK. But if Paul is the latecomer on the block - I've yet to hear a good argument why anyone should give him the time of day....If Paul is so adamant that it was to be his vision that would replace their vision - surely, the old school boys would just tell him to go take a hike...

The trouble with a multitude of visions etc is that there is no way to come to a rational method of judging them. It really is anyones game. Or better still, everyones game. One never-ending stream of consciousness with no anchor to reality.

The simple answer, to my mind, is that all the talk re ideas etc, would be more beneficial, have more purpose, if rooted in some historical reality. A measuring stick of sorts by which all the flights of fancy could be grounded.

Indeed, Jesus of the gospel storyline cannot be such a historical figure - that figure is mythological, figurative, symbolic etc. But that allegorical storyline does not rule out the possibility that a historical figure was relevant to the ideas, spiritual insights, of the early Christians. Sure, the early Christians were after developing a spiritual comprehension (of sorts....) hence it was ideas that would be paramount not any real life figure - however much such a figure might have been inspirational. And if it was ideas that were paramount, then, in time, any historical inspirational figure, would have to fade into the background as the spiritual storyline took center stage. (enter Jesus of Nazareth born of a virgin etc.....) And of course, a real historical figure has family, if not children then siblings. Big dangers for a movement that wants to concentrate on the spiritual side of things. Family, associates - all that would have be be quickly nipped in the bud - enter Paul on his high white horse to save the day from all the tangled web of hierarchies and bloodlines...

Looking for a historical Jesus is a dead-end, no such historical person to find - as is evidenced by all the Quests that have failed. But that should not be the end but the beginning of a historical quest for the early beginnings of Christian history.

Of course, bottom line, no historical figure has any 'salvation' potential - it's all interpretation, insights, ideas etc. But an inspiration historical figure does provide the grounding, the measuring stick, against which the prevailing ideas of the time could be set against. In other words - would keep ideas from distancing themselves from reality.

dogsgod

Where did Christianity begin? Answering that might be a beginning to explain how. The epistle writings are the earliest writings, they seem to cover a vast area from Greece to Asia Minor, to Jerusalem, as well as Rome. The gospels, written later, are centered on Galilee and Jerusalem, but where were they written, and where did they first appear? Where was the first known reference to the gospels made?

aa5874

But, it is these so-called revelations and visions of the Pauline writer that destroys his historicity in the 1st century before the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

The Pauline writer would have made a FATAL error by trying to usurp the authority of the old school boys with visions and revelations.

The old school boys would have just given the Pauline writer a mouthful of their visions and revelations from their own Jesus and it would NOT include Paul.

The old school boys could have simply told the Pauline writer that their own Jesus just just spoke to them through a vision or revelation, and their Jesus did not tell them anything Pauline. And they could have scolded the Pauline character and told him that while their Jesus was on earth he taught nothing Pauline.

Then, they could have implied that the Pauline writer may have had visions and revelations fron a non-Jesus source, perhaps the Devil, and was heretical.

That could have been the end of the Pauline story only if Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings were historical.

gurugeorge

But isn't that just what religion is like?

Fine - so where is he?

dogsgod

They all had visions of a resurrected Christ. No one claimed to have witnessed a crucifixion, the idea of a crucifixion came from Paul's ancient scriptures. Paul might be a late comer, but his story differs little from the others. The arguments he had with the Jerusalem group seem to stem around traditions such as circumcision and whether gentiles should be converted.

aa5874

There is NO credible historical SOURCE that SHOW the Pauline writer had an argument with anyone before the Fall of the Temple about a character called Jesus Christ who was deified with the power to abolish the Laws of God and circumcision.

The Pauline writings do not reflect history. Look at his conversion in Acts it is fiction.

Based on information found in the very Pauline writings itself, the writings are after the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

Elijah

I’m not sure how you are using the words Gnostic or mystic; how are they are different or synonymous? For me Gnostic is about teaching metaphysics/philosophy with the idea that there is some benefit to gaining that knowledge like Plato’s idea of us recollecting all the forms/idea we lose at birth so hopefully we can escape the cycle of rebirth. A mystic would teach you techniques for you to connect to the spiritual side of the universe via your mind and that can either change your behavior which can fix the world or you could see the idea that by turning your attention to the eternal when you die you proceed onto the eternal and if your mind is focused on the sensory/material side then you will return back to it or dissolve into. One the knowledge is what is the key the other is the experience or connection with the eternal.

Now that is strictly speaking about the divide between the two ideologies (in how I define the two words) because there is almost always going to be some cross over and different kind of hybrids but where one thinks the salvation actually lies is what would decide if the group was Gnostic or mystic.

Philosophy itself is an example of a hybrid between the two where the philosopher connects to a spiritual element reason/logos to gain insight into the nature of the universe. A philosophical school that emphasized the pursuit of truth as the key to their salvation and taught to use reason and focus on the intellectual side of the universe would be more mystic and the schools who said the teachings the school believed in is what befits the student is more Gnostic.

When I say Gnostics are like Plato for the masses what I mean is that I don’t think they were teaching the people to be philosophers or to connect with reason but were instead selling the teachings to them as of being of some benefit of some kind.

My understanding of Gnostics here comes not from the orthodox heresiologists but from the actual Nag which I was completely obsessed with for a few years. At the time and for a long time I thought the texts was the secret stuff the church didn’t want you to know and would reveal the cover-up of the big orthodox conspiracy. But after trying to figure out what they were pushing it didn’t appear to be anything in there that was actually worth covering up and it just looked like an ideological dispute where I sided with the orthodox position, after figuring out what orthodoxy actually was and could understand why they wanted to get the people who wanted to turn the movement into a vehicle to promote philosophy; after originally thinking the NT couldn’t be trusted at all. I think you could probably track some of this change from my posts on here.
This sounds correct to me I just see the mystical emphasis coming after the more orthodox faith emphasis has got going, not the other way around. It would be expected for the movement to create little spinoffs where it comes into contact with different ideological POV’s. It also easy to understand how a religious movement who is trying to be open to anyone regardless of philosophical knowledge or mystic ability or morality would try to prevent movements that tried to create divisions by saying a certain gnosis was necessary or mystical disposition to be saved and things like canonization which looks suspicious to us now makes some sense from their perspective.

It’s easy to explain how a movement where the requirement is only faith spreads so quickly especially when the reward is eternal life and not the figuratively speaking kind and it would be expected if that movement got popular that ideologies trying to poach Christians would use that popularity to promote their own ideas. This is what it looks like happened based on the texts we have… if you don’t assume a grand conspiracy theory where the orthodox side completely rewrote history to fit their needs.
It does kind of sound like an amalgamation of faith and mysticism if I’m following you about what they were saying. Sounds like you’re saying that they retro prophesized a historical messiah in the past who died… and I’m guessing was still resurrected? The main difference between this ideology and the orthodox position is that the early Christians were confirmed by a vision and the converts by the story of the retro prophecy in a written form and other people’s faith. They both thought he was historical and they both thought it was faith in that as the/a key component to any kind of salvation. Why wouldn’t you consider the synoptic source and John to be written forms of what the early prophets saw in their vision instead of orthodox cover-up? Seems unnecessary for your theory.
The point is that we all have knowledge, that’s no big deal here, it’s love of god that we are looking for which is in line with a mystic outlook. The modern equivalent here would be someone trying to unite the people under a common banner and telling the rational minded people to not be puffed up by the knowledge in regards to Christian superstitions but to stay united.

V10 isn’t promoting Gnosis as far as I can tell but instead about not misleading someone to do wrong that they believe wrong by following your example even though your knowledge says it’s not wrong. I think… iffy

I think the variety of interpretation is expected from a movement based solely on faith in a guy as a messiah. I think if it was originally from a specific mystical practice or Gnostic school then you would have more need to explain the variety.

Your connection to the divine is retro prophesying that the messiah has come and went right? I don’t know how that event itself would save the individual.

And the mystic acquaintance is retro prophesying the event or just connecting to the spirit in the present because someone suggests to them that it’s there? I think the Gnostic trust isn’t mystic based but it’s trusting that the teachers aren’t talking bollocks about what they think the makeup of the universe is or that it will do them any good.
The father/god isn’t knowable to Paul. You can be known by god but you can know him. Gal4:9 I’m not really following what you are saying here. This no longer has anything to do with Jesus having come in the past, it’s just about awareness of god makes you a son of god? Why would the story of a messiah dying in the past be needed or help with that?
I think you should adjust your expectation to include it was a small time working class cult hero and not expect too much evidence. Be happy with what you got.

I’m not sure what you think makes the connection so paramount. Any text to support that?
I think you are right that Gnosticism and mysticism is going to find its home in the more well to do middle class people with time on their hands to study philosophy and meditate. If you’re too busy working to stay alive then you’re probably not going to have time for those kinds of leisurely pursuits. I just don’t see a middle class mystic movement spawning a working class faith movement as easy as I can see the middle class meditation and philosophizing on a working class hero after it got popular through the working class’ faith. I don’t know about the idea of looking at Paul’s letters as the beginning of the movement but when the movement got its first educated/Hellenized convert that could think and write to that level. I don’t think you have to wonder where the letters of Peter are if he was a fisherman or speculate he didn’t exist because he didn’t leave a manifesto about what he thought was going on with Jesus.
I don’t know about the carpenter stuff but just looking at Paul’s letters you believe are authentic probably isn’t going to give you too much of a picture of the guy considering he never met him.

Mark 8:35 For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it.

Matt 10:38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

Matt 16:24 Then Jesus told his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life? Or what shall a man give in return for his life?

John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you. No longer do I call you servants,for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you.

I think the martyrdom push is pretty clear. And there was the also asking if Peter would die for him and saying he wouldn’t.

It probably would have, if it wasn’t for the martyrdom meme helping to establish faith in those who saw and heard of it. How does your model of Christianity prevent from fading into obscurity? What was it doing or offering that made it so successful?
I think its evidence of them trying to promote a guy as the messiah in a time when people expected a messiah to win. Now if he was historical or made up is debated but it seems obviously a story trying to promote a messiah. I personally feel the impossible feats are mostly in line with acts of faith trying to show him as powerful as any of the OT guys. I don’t see him as being part divine in the mythological sense and it coming from your mystic perspective am surprised you would assume that interpretation and not one of a mystic in tune with a spiritual element.
I don’t know why you are sure the “according to the scripture” is about him proving he was past tense not for being defeated or raised or given to the gentiles? Especially without any evidence of the scripture they are using to come to this conclusion. Hugely speculative.
I think I can agree with some of this. When you say material rulers do you mean like Caesar and demon as in intellectual entity/meme in his head? Or rulers of matter like gods? Taking what you say a little bit figurative I can agree that they were pushing a nontraditional king because the authority/Rome was prepared and able to destroy any potential hope for a messiah. And also that it was trying to prevent people from looking for another messiah.

What I don’t understand is why it needs to be in the past to fool the rules if it’s a nontraditional king and he gets defeated what were they going to do to stop him… let him win? I think if they would have known what kind of messiah they were trying for then they wouldn’t have killed him and started the movement. I don’t see why this needed to be in the past if it actually just happens in reality like normal the followers just don’t find out until later.

I also don’t see how the resurrection of the dead magically redeems us all in your theory but I do see it offering proof of life after death in a real way and a way to get around the wages of sin, which is death if a second resurrection was expected and you could get your name on the call up list.
When do you think the martyrdom comes if it doesn’t come with the apostles and Paul? I do agree the idea would seem absurd to martyr yourself to most, that’s why it gave faith to people that they were telling the truth about the dead rising. Them believing the martyrdom was absurd also helped created variety in interpretation because it didn’t make any sense at the time because I think it would be a bit before blood of the martyrs was generally recognized as the seeds of the church.
Impregnated by faith in what a vision told her if you go by Luke which gives the narrative of what happened with Mary while Matthew gives the vision to Joseph.

It’s just like Abraham having faith in a vision about his wife who shouldn’t have been able to convieve but he believed. They even show Elizabeth playing the Sara role and also helping to confirm young Mary’s faith. It’s faith that conceived him not a mythological/superstitious understanding of a ghost. It the story about the power of faith not a man god.
It’s hard for me to imagine it as a small cult and converting an emperor and taking over an empire. I see it more like over here in America where we have a conservative Mormon guy, Romney, who wants to run for president but it’s a case of him getting enough support from the growing population of Mormons to compete with the resistance of him being a Mormon. Now if the Mormons have a strong desire to get one of theirs to be this nation’s leader then they will put more energy into it to get it done and it will probably happen eventually. And the early Christians may have been smaller but more intent on converting Rome but they would still need some decent numbers to get the support.
For the last word. (maybe) I was thinking about the overall conversation and it occurred to me that you are doing what you claimed the retro prophets were doing. You think you can look at the scripture and figure out/know what really happened despite what the texts say. But instead of saying that there was a messiah in the past where there was none you saying there was no messiah where there is one.

Elijah

It’s not possible for the resurrection to have revived the Jesus movement because it isn’t possible for there to have been one, a vision of dead guy sure. But it’s the sacrifice that could have really happened and would explain why his followers had the faith they did. The fact that Jesus had the faith to face his death when Peter didn’t is what would help convince Peter he was serious.