TedM

Your last sentence is not relevant to what we are talking about. You said I am assuming that the location of the Messiah would have been an important topic. That's what we are talking about. You first sentence is not relevant to that topic either. What is relevant is what the expecation was for the location of the Messiah. There is plenty of evidence that the expectation was that he would arrive on earth to set up his kingdom. I know of no evidence that the expecation was that he would arrive on some place other than earth. Therefore the assumption that for Jews an arrival at a place other than earth would be an important issue seems quite reasonable. For Gentiles, it probably would not have mattered in the beginning of their beliefs except to the extent that that is what they were taught. Later (when "historical Jesus" was taught), I would think that it would have matterred to the extent that their belief was being challenged in a significant way.




http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=217414&page=5

There I asked:Earl's answer:

Note the last sentence--the very thing I'm talking about here--a contradiction brought about by the historicists--that Doherty would have expected a restatement of the ingrained idea of a Jesus in another sphere by Paul. By extension, of course one would expect such a restatement--and not an assimulation--by those that followed in the same beliefs. Yet, that is the very thing I'm saying doesn't exist in the manuscripts, and I'm asking what is necessary for us to not expect to see it in the manuscript record?



Let me paraphrase your answers:

1. Doherty-style Christians didn't die out because later Christians also believed in a spiritual Jesus.
2. The early church may not have cared whether Jesus was originally a human or not
3. A generation had passed, so no one would have known whether the person really lived
4. A second century Christian with only the text would not have known or cared
5. You suspect that personal salvation was not 'the results of reading the text'.
6. It's not clear what needs to be explained since most beliefs are muddled.

1 overlooks the idea that Doherty-style Christians didn't believe Jesus had walked the earth--as Doherty himself says a very different believe was "ingrained" in them
2 and 3 seem unlikely to me. 4 is too late to be relevant. 5 personal salvation perhaps, but the belief content was dependant on it, so this seems to miss the point 6. Perhaps. But logically, there was a transition from one camp to another which has some explanation. If you think it simply can't be explained, fine. One thing that you haven't mentioned is the role of oral tradition within the Christian communities of the time of transition. I assume from your answers that oral tradition of Jesus' location was not a factor in the transition becase the issue itself--the location--was either unimportant or not even known for sure--so it would have been unimportant or unknown in the oral tradition that was passed along. If I've got this wrong feel free to correct me.


What are you saying exactly? That those 4 things did not have to happen in some fashion? Or that they could have happened without leaving any evidence. If the latter, that isn't an argument on my part. That is a question about your thoughts on HOW they could have happened. I'm not putting my imagination on the line--I'm asking for yours.





Ok. Then let's discard them from the discussion. They don't help the Doherty case at all since you claim that what writings we do have on them cannot be clear to us.

I didn't make a sweeping claim, as far as I see. I did ask you a question or two and also stated that surely the modern spin you refer to is based on the writings of the time which were at least clear enough to not be referring to Doherty-style mythicism.

Re: the docetist record
That's a valid answer to my questions. If you want to claim that their may have been a clash between early Doherty-style mythicists and historicists who came a generation later, or that there was no real clash because the issue wasn't important or became muddled, but that in either scenario that led eventually to historicist assimulation it is now buried forever because of intentional manuscript "rewriting of history" then that's your answer to all of my questions about what is necessary to explain the absence of any evidence for an evolution of origins from Doherty-style mythical Jesus to gospel-style historical Jesus isn't it? If so, thanks.

ted

Clivedurdle

Actually I see all this as ritual based - the Eucharist. Paul and the Gospels are two attempts - maybe more - to express in words these experiences. Of course they would use existing ideas - Christ, Messiah, Father son, new heaven and earth, socratic wisdom.....

Jesus is a clear result of attempts to put into words religious experiences. I have a clear cause and effect chain. Plays would be a natural way to attempt to communiate these visions and experienes of men able to sup with the gods. It is immediately muddled and intermingled because we have a committee trying to describe an elephant!

HJists - (what are they actually?) - no xian would call themselves that - do not have reasons for the growth of xianity and its "heresies".

Toto

The Jews were expecting an earthly Messiah, who would be a military hero,

Jesus Christ is not that Messiah.

I don't know how to put it more more plainly.

I don't follow this, and I don't think you understand what Doherty was saying.

Doherty style Christians evolved into Christian who believed in a god-man.

This makes no sense.

Your point?

Why?

I don't assume that there was any oral tradition. Apologists have invented the oral tradition to explain how gospels written from 70 CE to 110 CE could contain any historical details about something that happened in 30 CE. It is a theoretical construct with less substance than Q.

I don't agree with you that these four things had to have happened.

Yes, that is the sweeping claim that I referred to. You claim that something is "surely" true when you don't know, and you are wrong.

That is not exactly my answer, but it is clear that this discussion is totally unproductive for me.

:wave:

Chris Weimer

"The Jews were expecting an earthly Messiah, who would be a military hero,

Jesus Christ is not that Messiah.

I don't know how to put it more more plainly."

That's a pretty good argument in favor of the historical Jesus, as a mythological Jesus who doesn't fit the requirements couldn't be derived solely from scriptures.

:wave:

Storm

Doesn't midrash help to explain this?

Paul preaches about a redeeming saviour derived from the OT. People understand it to be otherworldly. But this is different than understanding it to be "fictional". Christ existed in a real way to them, just not in earthly flesh.

Either as an initiation play or teaching tool, Mark continues to dig into the OT and develops a whole narrative for Jesus. Since its derived from scripture, no one has a major issue with it. It's not false or a deliberate fiction, it's merely a different presentation of the story of Christ. But it is still a valid story of Christ.

As Christianity rapidly spreads and more and more have less understanding of midrash, it becomes "the" story of Christ.

I see no need for a conflict if the initial cult saw the gospel story as valid midrash. (Of course this is a just a guess)

TedM

That could happen, but would would be necessary for it all to have happened without leaving any manuscript evidence of the evolution?

One might say the evolution is seen by comparing the content of manuscripts over time--ie early ones discuss things differently than later ones (Paul vs gospels). Or that they contain hints of an evolution within the documents themselves (existence of different "gospels")

That's possible evidence, but neither of those get to the heart of the the absence I'm talking about, which is glaring. None of the groups ever clearly allude to the other groups.

Why not? Give that fact, what is necessary in order for that gaping absence of information to not be troublesome to the evolution Doherty refers to?

ted

Storm

The way I'm looking at this, it's not a glaring omission for me. They all viewed the various presentations as valid. There was no major dispute to be had. The differences were in where they wanted emphasis and interpretation of certain theological points. And for that we have the different gospels.

Everyone thought they were true, so there was no discussion of "did this actually take place on earth?". Paul was midrash and so were the gospels. The larger disputes came later after the expansion of Christianity and the original cult had faded away. Either none of the ones who "knew" it never took place on earth were left, or they were such a small majority that they could easily be ignored.

I'm no expert and know most of what I do from lurking here, so I may be missing something historically, but I see no problem with this evolution or a need for there to be documented disputes.

Scott

TedM

Doherty's Jesus was first believed upon by Jews, which would not have expected the kind of Messiah they worshipped. If you don't believe that statement is true, then we see this very differently. To me it is a critical point. To you it seems unimportant.


I don't know why you can't follow it, and I didn't have any problem doing so.


I'm basically saying an evolution requires a dying out of part of the original belief. That's how evolution works in the animal world too--the old dies out, replaced by the new.



My point is that they seem unlikely to me.


It doesn't pertain to the friction of prior challenged beliefs--ie the transition issue, but it is a valid point for the acceptance by new converts unfamiliar with the prior dogma.

I wasn't referring only to that. I was referring to the oral tradition of the early Christians who in this thread would have been the Doherty-style Christians.


I can't find what you are talking about. Here's what I wrote about docetists:

And you wrote:
May I suggest that you not accuse me of something I didn't do?

I'm not sure why you even tried to participate here if your bottom line position is that there is no need to support an argument when such support can't be found because of a mass conspiracy in the manuscript record.

ted

TedM

I don't know Scott. The disputes regarding whether Gentiles and Jews could sit together, worship together, who could eat what, and all the arguments between pharisees and sadducees etc in the gosples and all of the emphasis on people verifying for themselves what really happened historically suggest to me that virtually EVERYTHING was subject to plenty of debate. And that verification was part of the mindset of the culture, at least within Christianity. Otherwise, why would the gospel writers appeal to verification as something the reader could or should do?

Dispute and not assimulation appears to have been the prevailing first-response.

The way those early manuscripts read suggests a completely opposite situation than what you and some other folks here suggest.

I think there would have been a HUGE uproar within the Doherty-Style camp at the gospel accounts. I think the early Christians would have ridiculed the historicist as world-class fools for first believing a passion play was meant to be taken literally, and second for believing that Jesus had walked the earth when there were Jews around who would have known he never did, and who would have also known that the Doherty-style Jesus was the only one they had ever heard of, and they would have strongly objected to their portrayal as crucifiers of the real Messiah.

ted

Clivedurdle

Were they?

I read stories of people disputing how to interpret the scriptures - is it OK to nibble a corn of wheat on the Sabbath? Should you heal on the sabbath? Should gentiles be circumcised?

Continually referring back to the scriptures. Every element of the life of Jesus refers back to a scripture! When I was brought up in churches preachers were proud to proclaim that - and it is in fact correct!

Why did they do that? Because they took it as prophetic of Jesus!

But hang on, what is real and historic about a life built up from pre existing writings? Even the core teaching - love your neighbour - is in the books of Moses!

It is in fact almost mathematical in its grandeur! The scriptures predict x, y fulfills the scriptures or equals x! This is the root of its power, not history, but its logical completeness!

It is in fact ridiculous to say this logically constructed ideal is historical!