sotto voce

1 Thess. mentions the word 'gospel' or 'good news' several times. So there is a question of what was meant by 'good news', which is referred to as 'the Word of God'. There is also mention of a message, received gladly. There is mention of 'the Lord Jesus Christ', or 'Christ', several times. Jesus is known by the authors to have been killed, yet was 'raised from the dead', and is even expected to return to earth in power. The church is referred to as 'the elect', who were to be saved from 'the wrath to come'; so the question of how there can be elect without atonement is raised.

Sheshbazzar

The word 'Christian' Χριστιανός 'Christianos' allegedly derives from the Greek term ὁ χριστὸς 'o' christos' which is in the NT capitalized as the title ὁ Χριστὸς, meaning 'The Anointed', a translation of the Hebrew term המשיח 'ha' mashika' meaning 'the anointed' or one 'painted' with 'oil' or ointment.
(in 'Christian' usage, evidently flavored a bit, and often confused through close association with similar sounding Greek 'o' chrestus' meaning 'the good' or 'the useful')

The Hebrew root משח 'mashach' which occurs extensively within the Tanaka has no inherent meaning of 'atonement' nor of 'suffering', nor does the Greek term χριστὸς 'christos' ('anoint[ed]') which is used as a translation.

The usage of Χριστιανός 'Christianos' in the NT is not inherently in reference to an 'atonement', but is a pluralistic name that designates a class of 'anointed ones'.
Neither 'Prophets' nor the 'Christians' 'atone' for anything.

sotto voce

The High Priests and kings of Israel. Very good.

Duvduv

But the term "gospel" in the way it's used in the epistles doesn't apply to the four gospels, so it is theoretically possible that these four stories were not categorized in a sacred way as "gospels" and yet the writer of Galatians argued that his "gospel" (i.e. doctrine of salvation through the Christ) was the only one EVEN if he knew about some of the stories of the four gospels especially if they hadn't yet been consigned to writing.

Solo

Hi Duvduv, I am at a loss to understand what makes you say that. The patristic church considered the passion, i.e. the reality of the crucifixion, absolutely central to the faith. It was the very ground on which they fought with the gnostics. The latter I understand to have recruited mostly from the core Pauline following which could not be reconciled to the apostolic authority of the disciples and their claim of witnessing resurrection of Christ in flesh, which they considered absurd. Hence the different schemes of a crucified double.

Incidentally, one of the reasons that I consider "a mythical" origin a possibility is that one of the early verses of Thomas appears to know nothing of the passion narrative. Saying "wherever you are (have come)" means Jesus does not know that the disciples would be in Jerusalem at the time of his departure.

My own conviction is that the preaching of the gospel in Paul's epistles was allegorized by Mark. So I have no problem with your view and would go even further in saying that the usage of the word "gospel" in the narratives directly references Paul's unique semantics he supplied for the word.

Best,
Jiri

Duvduv

Jiri, you might have missed my posting right above your reply. And when I referred to other forms of death, I was thinking about why the Nicene Creed of 325 obviously didn't make a big deal out of a passion and crucifixion as opposed to mere suffering. I supposed the form of death wouldn't matter so much to them, otherwise they would have included it as a central dogma even in 325.

Keith&Co.

Well, the creed was an attempt to bring a whole passel of faith traditions together into one mascot religion of the empire. Vague language on the suffering may indicate that everyone took the crucifixion for granted and saw no reason to ennunciate, or it may be that different traditions were willing to fight over the exact nature of it and were okay with it as long as SOME suffering was included.


Some of the candidate dogmas for the creed included:

With the Father, He suffered and was buried.
He suffered and was buried.
He suffered, died, and was buried.
He substituted the Wrong-doer upon the cross, and escaped death.
He appeared to suffer, die and be buried.

An old police procedural show had a medical examiner using the forensic machines to diagnose a living person who had been fatally poisoned.
After he was scanned, he asked, "Can i sit up?"
"If you do ,you'll be the first patient i've had that did."

I think 'rose again' doesn't refer to 'resurrected again' as much as dead people seldom get off the examination table.

I mean, you can lay down to sleep and rise up again, and it's no big deal.
You lay down to die...and rise up again, that's noteworthy.

Duvduv

As has been explained to me, "rose again" is a mistranslation in English all over the place, and should be "stand again" meaning restored to physical worldly life.
Of course this is in the direction of the rabbinic belief in physical resurrection as opposed to who-knows-who, believing in only a spiritual existence (Saduccees) or maybe a spiritual bodily resurrection.

Solo

Ok, sorry Duvduv, I did not pay enough attention : yes the original 'short' Nicene creed did not specifically mention crucifixion under Pontius Pilate, as is the case with the later Nicean-Constantinople version. I am not sure of the significance of this. All I can say is that I am not familiar of any other form of suffering that Jesus was said to suffer on the believers' account. It is clear that that the patristic church accepted as true the accounts of the gospels, and given what I know of the nature of the theological disputes in the fourth century, it seems unlikely to me that the crucifixion was doubted or challenged from within the church. But then again I am not an expert.

Best,
Jiri

sotto voce

Surely, from Nicea to Duvduv, everyone supposed that 'suffering' meant 'crucifixion'.