RUmike

Well wasn't that the docetic view? Who knows if they accepted the entire Gospel outline. Chances are, no. But they still thought Jesus appeared to be human.

RUmike

Isn't the distinction really:
1. a normal physical human being Jesus
2. a spiritual, non-physical Jesus from some higher realm that
(a) appeared completely human on earth
--or--
(b) did not exist on earth but somewhere above it

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what Doherty's position is, but isn't his theory essentially 2b, while docetists would have believed 2a?

2a can reasonably support a historical Jesus since the path from historical figure to, "oh no, he just appeared human" is an easy step to take for someone who wanted Jesus to be divine.

But isn't Earl's theory that Jesus existed above the earth somewhere? That he never walked and talked with disciples in a seemingly human life?

ChandraRama

Exactly. If the MJ is the actual thing that happened, it could have created the Mythological Jesus as the Mythological Immanuel.

It did not.

Though this is the weak point for the Jesus as the Messiah, it is a strong point for the Jesus as the Historical person.

ChandraRama

Most of the mythological gods names are chosen with the specific thing in mind. Coming from the Hindu religion, openly mythological one, I can tell why the god names are such as Kali or Murugan. The names have significance and explain the whole lot about that face of God. (A small explanation: There are many gods in Hinduism, but all the gods are reflection of the ultimate God on the human mind.)

Well It could be John too, as It is "Yehwah's gift". The question is why select a common name from that era? Could that not be logos itself where it would be more appropriate?

spin

This is not necessary. The point is that a name emerges from tradition. It doesn't really matter from where.

The question doesn't make much difference. Yah saves is quite a reasonable name. He could have been called Joseph or Simeon or Judah or Fritz... What does it matter? You can't divine anything from a name.


spin

EarlDoherty

That's correct, Mike. I do not regard docetism as equivalent to a mythical Jesus. But we have to realize that docetism was probably a reaction against the invention of an historical Jesus at the beginning of the 2nd century. If the god Jesus was going to be put on earth, then he couldn't be fully human, possessing human flesh. If he was here on earth, then he only adopted the appearance of being human; or else (in the separationist concept), Jesus was a human man into whom the Christ spirit entered for Jesus' preaching career, but left him when he was about to be crucified. In virtually all the thinking in these cases, it was not the crucifixion of the phantom, or the man whom the Christ had departed, which was the salvation act, it was the teaching element that gave humanity gnosis.

One wonders why gnosticism didn't appear during the 3/4s of a century prior to Cerinthus & Co. The same philosophical objections would have been pertinent then. Also, I believe that we can see that prior to the adoption by Valentinus (and others) of a docetic Jesus on earth, we can detect belief in a purely mythical Christ who imparted gnosis through spiritual revelatory means. I did a study on the Gospel of Truth several years ago (judged to be an early Valentinian writing, perhaps around 120-130) and it failed to reflect any historical, let alone Gospel, view of its Revealer figure. Jacqueline Williams did a study of the document, purporting to find all sorts of "allusions" to Gospel elements in it, but they were as elusive as the "echoes" of an HJ in Paul!

Incidentally, Mike, I haven't take the trouble to post the remainder of that old posting about Mahlon Smith, and I probably won't bother to take the time now. No one commented on it, and anyway, I think the first half was indicative enough. I'll just let sleeping dogs lie. (Also, I've more or less withdrawn from discussions here on IIDB, at least for now, as I'm being stingy with my time away from work on the second edition of TJP.)

All the best,
Earl Doherty

RUmike

No worries, Earl. Thanks for the time you did put in.

Roland

I don't understand why Paul's comments couldn't be taken as referring to a mythological figure. After all, isn't it said that godlike individuals like Hercules, Zeus, Athena etc. were "born," performed actions in the real world, and, in some cases, "died" and came back to life? Being born, living and dying are as applicable to characters of fiction as to they are to people who have actually lived.

darstec

According to Jewish thought of the day (134 CE and following), would Mary have been considered an issue from the seed of Jesse? (forgetting, of course, the gospel geneaologies)

If so then Yahweh's seed contribution can be ignored and Joshua is still part of the Branch of Jesse/David.