maryhelena

:notworthy:

2-J

Having just read Jesus : Neither God Nor Man, I believe Doherty implies it was unlikely there was any one important individual, or at least, it's possible that there was not. Also the preacher figure (later) attached to the Jesus sayings is, in his view, meant to be symbolic of the preaching movement and of the best kind of behaviour the preachers could exhibit, rather than being based on any individual in the tradition, in his view.

GakuseiDon

Doherty proposes a Q community which adopted "Jesus" as a symbolic representation for them. He describes the Q community this way in his new book:

The itinerant prophets of this new 'counter-culture' expression announced the coming of the kingdom of God and anticipated the arrival of a heavenly figure called the Son of Man who would judge the world. They urged repentance, taught a new ethic and advocated a new society; they claimed the performance of miracles, and they aroused the hostility of the religious establishment. (Page 3)

As for miracles, there is no question that the Q prophets, as preachers of the kingdom, would have claimed the performance of signs and wonders, for every sectarian movement of the time had to possess that facility. These, especially miraculous healings, were the indispensable pointers of the kingdom. (Page 384)

aa5874

Do you SEE the question mark? Do you see "PAUL" with inverted commas?

Silly answer. A claim is NOT evidence.

Do you have historical evidence that there were TWO historical figures called
Jesus and that they were known by people of that time?


The TWO-FOR-ONE historical Jesus is SILLY.

mountainman

The gospel story can be rejected as a simple and non historical fable. Constantine actually tells us why Arius of Alexandria rejected it. It appears that Arius does not wish his concept of divinity to be subject to inane crucifixion tales, and on this account wrote his own books.

Source

maryhelena

Oh, my - wholesale rejection of the gospels - too easy, too easy - and it's that sort of approach that will get mythicism nowhere. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater never did achieve any social acceptance...

Rejecting the gospel storyline as not being historical is one thing - attempts to reject it for what it is - an interpretation of history - a very Jewish interpretation of history, a very Jewish concern and interest in a very Jewish messiah figure, are not only unfounded but fly in the face of rationality. It is not the gospel interpretation of history that is fundamental, however interesting as a literary work that is - it is the history from which it has been developed that is the primary concern for an investigation into early christian origins. What Jewish history was relevant? One will have no idea once the gospels are discarded or dismissed as being fables.

So, no historical JC - so? Reason enough to ditch the gospels? The no historical JC position is not the end - it is the beginning of an investigation into the gospels salvation interpretation of Jewish history.

mountainman

Hi maryhelena,

You must try and understand that I am studying ancient history and not mythicism. Also you must try and understand that the above reference is a quotation from a letter written by the Roman Emperor Constantine to Arius of Alexandria, in which Constantine must be citing earlier correspondence written by Arius to Constantine, in which Arius appears to have Constantine to "Go Away!".

Arius then says "I do not wish God to appear to be subject to suffering of outrages", which to me suggests that Arius was refering to the books of the "Constantine Bible".

Anyway, what is fundamentally erroneous about rejecting the gospels --- as the "Holy Writ of Planet Earth"? I actually think "The Lord of the Rings" is a perfectly acceptable "Holy Writ", but I would not enforce my ideas on others. The history of the 4th and 5th century Christological controversies, such as the massive Arian controversy, suffer from lack of sources. The gospels are evidence of some form of collaborative authorship, in Greek.

Besides, its not so much as rejecting the gospels, rather its a matter of accepting the possibility that the gospels were not authored in the first century, but are fabrications - pious forgeries - assembled a long time after. As far as modern ancient history is concerned today, the first century open and closed without a mention of Jesus, or the NT or the "nation of Christians" etc. We have a perfect vacuum of evidence for all these things in the 1st century. This is perfectly consistent with a later pious forgery.


Best wishes,



Pete

Toto

This has to do with the central issue in Arianism - was Jesus the same as God or a separate divine entity?

Toto

All references to Aryanism have been split to elsewhere as inflammatory and off topic.