stephan huller

For those who haven't figured out my exuberance. At the core of early Christianity was a doctrine called redemption. Irenaeus and others describe it as essentially having humanity - under the power of Satan - being purchased by Christ. Everyone knows that the Marcionites had a version of 'being purchased' from the Jewish god by Christ but it didn't make sense. Now we can see that the doctrine of 'switching gods' is already in Judaism. This is important because it shows that the idea of Jesus being a wholly divine figure is a viable theological position. He was called Chrestos (even in Philo). If someone like Philo already had the idea of switching gods and Clement took over that doctrine the Marcionite 'redemption' is now grounded in something other than scholarly bigotry. We can begin to reconstruct a wholly mythical Christianity developed directly from contemporary Judaism. The resultant understanding won't be Acharya S but it will be credible. Anyone can carry this out.

The next question is why did the 'good God' have to die on the Cross? My guess is that this is a reference to the solution:

For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.

The question is how did the Good God unite with the Lord on the Cross?

outhouse

he didnt

only a poverty stricken jewish teacher/healer

he didnt, the deity figures are both mythology that only exist in scripture

stephan huller

ok, outhouse

explain the 'redemption' doctrine of Irenaeus, Marcion, Origen et al with a historical Jesus. How does the death of a mortal on the cross lead us to be purchased from one divinity by another?

Chili

Christianity as a religion is stupid as it should be the end of religion just like it was for Joseph the Jew. The =-ity ending denotes a condition of being and that alrealy excludes all wannebe's including PhD's and the millions of books that they wrote, and I dare say that Voodoo is a hundred times better than so called Christianity will ever be.

outhouse

Irenaeus understanding of salvation

the incarnate son of god and the unity of god, recovered what was lost in the first Adam



Pauline theology, of one god, son included. Who lives a mortal life as god

stephan huller

I don't want to argue about Irenaeus specifically. The facts of the matter are - as my post illustrates - there is this thing called 'Christianity.' Most people at this forum think that 'what Christian is' is is their enemy. But let's look at what is. The religion is founded on the notion that Jesus 'purchased' each Christian from another divine being. The Catholics tend to identify that being as 'Satan.' Yet it is clear from what I demonstrated from Clement (and Philo) that it was originally a drame played out between the two powers of Judaism - 'the Lord' and 'Chrestos' (just to simplify matters). Do we get that?

Marcion seems to have been associated with this doctrine long before Clement. Eventually people like Origen transformed it into a purchase from the Devil. Irenaeus too from memory. Nevertheless Clement and Marcion point us to the original source - first century Judaism.

The underlying argument here is that since Jews in the second century started abandoning the idea of the Pentateuch featured two different gods (Yahweh/Elohim, kurios/theos) the survival of this Christian doctrine isn't from a visit to contemporary Jewry - it goes back to a very early period. Philo is cited by Clement as his source basically. The doctrine existed in a prototypical form before the gospel was ever written.

My point to you is that I simply can't believe that a historical Jesus is credible when you see this kind of layering of theological concepts. It's not like we're taking a second century myth and layering it over a second century narrative. The central mechanism in Christianity is the 'redemption' myth. It is what makes Christianity sensible. It's why people are baptized. It's what makes Christians Christians.

The idea that there was this real Jesus who was crucified and then Mark or Paul just happened to apply these ideas of two gods in heaven to this historical story is even harder to believe than assuming it is a straight up myth. I know it is reassuring for some to think that this 'Jesus guy' supports Christianity. But that's bullshit. Christianity is rooted in Jesus being a god. Only in America is it possible to say something so silly with a straight face and actually believe it.

The problem with previous 'mythicists' hitherto is that they haven't actually identified the original Christian myth. They've just applied pagan models in half-ass manner here and there. Now we're cooking with fire. The original Christian myth was that Jesus purchased humanity from the god of judgment and made them his sons. This is what the gospel was originally about. But where is it now?

stephan huller

http://www.fromdeathtolife.org/rtoat.html

stephan huller

My point would be - are the gospels in our possessions developments from a lost historical narrative or a mythological/theological narrative, one which supported the redemption myth? I say the latter.

outhouse

I'll agree with most.

the mythology surrounding the man and the majority of its theological concepts pre-existed.

the heart of jesus theology was his methodology. Free health care, sins absolved, dunking and washing with water was part of jewish herritage, baptism was a natural progression.

I still place him as more of a rebel zealot, then any literature suggest, the violence in the temple and death is what made him who he was, despite this supposed peaceful narrative romans are telling, avoiding how severe the oppression really was.


Its what the people at the time believed as they lived and applied the OT theology and mythology to a person they really thought existed as a mortal man and part of god.


Cultural anthropology of this time suggest theres no reason for there not to be a rebel leader, protesting the known corrupt governement, who would have been deified after his death, only due to roman growth of this movement

spin

Not a big concert person, me. But I like the notion of heavy rock in 5/4, such as Indiscipline. Wonderful idea.

Without reading your blog, I'd agree with most of your stupids. (And my comment was aimed at DCH's thesauric effort immediately above my response.)