Voice of reason

Well Hercules must be real because King Augeas had him clean up the stables.

maryhelena

Whatever was the 'fiction' that Luke "understood himself to be writing" - he placed that 'fiction' within a specific historical time period. I have yet to see a mythicist explain why that specific historical time period was used. If specific historical events were of no consequence, then there was no need, if Luke is after 'Paul', to have dated his JC story whatsoever. 'Paul' had no need to date his spiritual JC creation. Spirit creatures crucified in a spiritual heavenly realm are free from the confines of time and social/political realities.

Unscholarly? And just for interest's sake - just where has scholarship got to in the quest for a historical gospel JC and early christian origins?

It's a bit rich, surely, from a mythicist, to be branding about that word "unscholarly".....I understood that's the usual charge the NT scholars like to hurl the way of the mythicists.....

Vorkosigan

That's been discussed a gazillion times. I personally lean towards Daniel's famous seventy weeks. Your mileage may vary.

What do you mean "if" Luke is after Paul? You're not going to argue that Luke came first, are you?

Spirit creatures crucified in a spiritual heavenly realm are free from the confines of time and social/political realities.

Exactly, that is why Mark's Jesus is entirely fictional and allegorical.

Surely turnabout is fair play

maryhelena

Great - Daniel is relevant. But that requires an anointed or messiah figure that puts in an appearance relevant to those 70 weeks. And since those 70 weeks can have many variations - which variation are you upholding? And which dates are involved? Seems to me we are getting miles away from 'Paul's spiritually crucified figure here - a figure that in no manner of speaking can be relevant to any interpretation of Daniel's 70 weeks. How on earth could that be possible - how in heavens name could a spiritual figure be proven to have fulfilled Daniel's prophecy?? Methinks the Jews would be laughing their heads off.....:hysterical:

And as I mentioned in some early post - Antigonus can well fit in to Daniel's time frames. In fact, take a look at Slavonic Josephus:

Josephus’ Jewish War and Its Slavonic Version: A Synoptic Comparison (or via: amazon.co.uk) H. Leeming (editor) K. Leeming (editor)

The siege of Jerusalem by Herod the Great in 37 b.c. - and the year in which the last King and High Priest of the Jews, Antigonus, was bound to a cross/stake/tree and later slain. Interesting, don't you think? Antigonus cut off after a 3 year rule - right bang in the middle of a "week". The Jews hoping for restoration but instead experienced desolation - a foreign king to reign over them. Enough there, methinks, to start the grey cells thinking in spiritual terms - but first the upset; the reality that their anointed King and High Priest was turned into an accursed figure by being bound to a cross/stake/tree.
Since we don't have a date for the writing of 'Paul' - it's an open question of which came first. I would be inclined to date gLuke sometime after Antiquities, since there seems to be some connection between Luke's dropping Philip as being a husband of Herodias and Josephan 'history' on this marriage. (gMatthew and gMark referencing such a marriage - indicating writing prior to Antiquities). gMatthew also places his JC within a historical specific time frame: to the time of Herod the Great. Every Jesus, whether in Mark, John, Matthew or Luke, "is entirely fictional and allegorical".
And what became of not stooping to such a level???

:wave:

Solo

Look at it again, Vork:

Best,
Jiri

Solo

He was also fulfilling Paul's letters as paradoxon. He clearly was using historical background to his allegory. Whether he was inventing or casting events to fulfil the scriptures is debatable.

Best,
Jiri

Vorkosigan

Jiri, Paul is very clear on what he is talking about.

• But someone may say, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come back?”
  
  The Resurrection Body. 36* You fool! What you sow is not brought to life unless it dies. 37And what you sow is not the body that is to be but a bare kernel of wheat, perhaps, or of some other kind; 38u but God gives it a body as he chooses, and to each of the seeds its own body. 39* Not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for human beings, another kind of flesh for animals, another kind of flesh for birds, and another for fish. 40There are both heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the brightness of the heavenly is one kind and that of the earthly another. 41The brightness of the sun is one kind, the brightness of the moon another, and the brightness of the stars another. For star differs from star in brightness.
  
  42* So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown corruptible; it is raised incorruptible. 43It is sown dishonorable; it is raised glorious. It is sown weak; it is raised powerful.v 44It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual one.

The physical body refers to the believer, not to Jesus. You missed how Paul completes his analogy, in parallels.

corruptible -- incorruptible.
dishonorable -- glorious.
weak -- powerful
natural body -- spiritual body. (If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual one)

Then he completes it and it is clear where he classes Jesus:

The first man, Adam, = living being, the last Adam = life-giving spirit.
natural and then the spiritual.
first man from earth, earthly, the second man, from heaven.
the earthly one, so also are the earthly, the heavenly one, so also are the heavenly.

Jesus he clearly classes with things of heaven, a spiritual body, a spirit from heaven. Glorious, powerful, spiritual. Not a thing of earth.

In fact this passage you've selected rules out the possibility that Jesus was man. You've put your finger on a very Dohertian silence -- why if Jesus was also on earth as Adam -- born of a woman unlike Adam -- Paul offers no explanation or description of his earthly life in contrast to Adam's.

But How does Paul distinguish Jesus from Adam? It is clear from the passage: Jesus operated in the spiritual realm as a spirit. That's the clear meaning of the passage.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Of course it is debatable, but no evidence supports the idea of a historical kernel underlying any particular story. Nothing is necessary for the existence of the stories other than Markan invention via typical literary paralleling.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

There is nothing in the gospels to suggest that anyone was thinking of Antigonus. What specifically can you point to?

Vorkosigan

Solo

The man from heaven is the risen Christ; it is the man resurrected, the man of the eschaton. Paul believes that whatever is happening in his own head and body, and the heads and bodies of his fellow ecstatics, is the post-mortem life of Christ in heaven, a purely spiritual form of life. He believes that this man of heaven is beckoning to them and urges them to imitate the life of a purely spiritual being. Paul's dualism is near absolute - life on earth is misery, pain, filthy lust, greed, in short, sin ending in death. That is why Paul does not permit talk about Jesus on earth (1 Cr 2:2, 2 Cr 5:16). He would have to portray him as a sinner. He dodges that by saying that "he was made sin who knew no sin" (2 Cr 5:21) which clearly parallels his own experience of psychosis. When Paul is out of his mind 'it is for God' (2 Cr 5:13). It is for this reason that Paul does not want to speak of the one emptying himself of God's form and taking on humbly everyone's earthly existence. Jesus ended up crucified. Paul declares taboo on speaking about the abasement of God on earth. But that does not mean he preaches some unattainable abstract in neverland. If Christ was crucified in heaven then qui bono ? That does not provide any consolation to those suffering on earth. The imitatio lies at the very core of Paul's theology (1 Cr 1:18-31).

Best,
Jiri