Duvduv

Can anyone conceive of a Jesus sect that imagined a suffering and resurrected Jesus WITHOUT a crucifixion by taking the first Nicene Creed at face value? Could a Jesus be incarnated and suffer without the crucifixion and still be the divine Christ?

Toto

Is there a point to this question? Do you have a Christian sect in mind that might have centered on a Christ who was not crucified?

mountainman

Hey duvduv,

Have a summary read through of the NHC 7.3 The Apocalypse of Peter translated by James Brashler and Roger A. Bullard.

You will need to disambiguate The Apocalypse of Peter and the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter.

My notes from these:


There in response to your question, the evidence suggests that there were people manufacturing codices that did not consider the Nicaean Bishops representative of any form of religious authority. At the same time they appear to have Jesus laughing at the crucifixion - Jesus has become docetic.

The problem is that when we try and research and understand the Christian sects of that epoch, the evidence about these so-called sects is comprised of pseudo-historical heresiological polemic. Our official information is corrupt. Another text in the NHC (11.1) states that the Gnostics fled before the Onrush of "Christians":

The text of The Interpretation of Knowledge translated by John D. Turner, commences ... (13 lines missing) ...

"they came to believe by means of signs and wonders and fabrications. The likeness that came to be through them followed him, but through reproaches and humiliations before they received the apprehension of a vision they fled without having heard that the Christ had been crucified."

This section seems to indicte that people fled before the onrush of the Christian message. Reproach and humiliation preceeded the message, and therefore the generation of the author fled the revolution. The text continues ....

"But our generation is fleeing since it does not yet even believe that the Christ is alive"

It would appear that some doubted whether the Christ ever lived at all in an historical sense, especially considering the author has just admitted most people of the generation fled in advance of hearing about the Christ having been crucified.

Do I have to repeat this? The Christian onrush was so savage that people didn't stick around to wait for the punch line about the resurrection because they had fled the arena even before they heard he was crucified.

What TF was going down?

Extreme Docetism.

These authors thought that the "Official" Jesus story was bullshit.

The heresiologists naturally want to classify these authors as heretical sects.

Only the "Official Jesus Story" and its Business Operation was to be tolerated.

The Greek intellectual tradition, and its critical questioning, was to be suppressed.

And the spirit of the Christian Emperors moved upon the face of the Roman Empire like an oil slick.

And lo and behold! A New Rome and a New MiddleEarth.

Duvduv

Mountainman, as far as I recall the gnostic view did not entail "suffering" and death as an alternative. But perhaps I missed something in terms of a process of suffering that does not contemplate crucifixion.

mountainman

A gnostic process of suffering is described in the political context of a mid 4th century manufactured codex. It was a suffering induced by military suppression by those described as "The Rulers of this Age".

The gnostic generation (of the 4th century) fled in advance of the christian military regime before it had a chance to hear about the crucifixion. At least that's what the textual evidence appears to say.

It was from the writings of the later 5th century orthodox christian heresiologists that we are induced to believe that the populace was privy to the Official Jesus Story at all. I think that the New Testament was not only New, but in the term used by Eusebius, both new and strange.

You have already pointed out that the 4th century "churchmen" did not really show much knowledge of some of the canonical books. They were not aware of any higher authority than that of the 318 Nicaean Fathers of the church. The centralised monotheistic state religious cult was supported by the Emperor's army. The Bible was published by it.

But can we put down the Bible for one second and ask the question who were the gnostic generation that fled it.

Duvduv

I am referring to a possible view of the Christ suffering and dying without crucifixion that may have been a pre-gospel view. Since we see that the crucifixion was not an essential element in an original creed.Such as suffering from torture or emotional suffering leading to death.
This would not substantively change the story of the Christ's ability to undertake theoretical salvation.

mountainman

Toledot Yeshu

sotto voce

In cloud-cuckoo land. Without the crucifixion, Jesus would have been remembered by a few antiquarians, a prophet of an obscure religion that died out in 136. He would be remembered by those few only as a failed prophet, without a following. A christ or messiah must have soteriological value.

Duvduv

Sotto Voce, if that's the case then the authors of the first Nicene Creed didn't know what you know because either the idea of crucifixion didn't emerge yet or it wasn't considered of major significance.

sotto voce

Then where did the word 'Christianity' come from? It's preposterous to use that word without meaning atonement. Prophets don't atone. Let's begin to be scholars.