Gregg

Well, yeah, if you think this is how to describe the beginning if Christianity with no HJ. Perhaps you should review Doherty's 12 puzzle pieces, at least?

How about:

There was no HJ.

There was Greek neo-Platonism w/multi-layered heaven and the Logos, an intermediary between God and man.

There were neo-Platonist cults that worshipped the Logos.

There were various dying/rising savior god cults worshipping (and believing themselves saved by) dying/rising savior gods who no one today insists must have been real people at one time.

There was Jewish personified Wisdom and the Son of Man figure, which got connected with the Logos.

There was Jewish messianism and apocalypticism.

There was the Suffering Servant from Isaiah, which got connected with both Wisdom/Son of Man/Logos/Messiah and with the ancient mythos of a god suffering, dying, and rising to effect the salvation of humankind.

There was the Jewish practice of midrash, which involved taking OT passages out of context, reinterpreting them, and applying them to current events.

There's nothing that says the midrash practice couldn't have been applied to current theological trends and concepts as well.

There's the fact that there was widespread familiarity with Greek neo-Platonist philosophy, Judaism, and dying/rising savior god beliefs.

There's the environment of the first century--the Pax Romana, the cosmopolitan environment, the good roads and relatively peaceful conditions faciliating travel and communication, the religous tolerance of the Empire, the mixing of various religious and philosophical ideas, etc.

There are certain messianic Jews based in Jerusalem, influenced in varying degrees by Greek neo-Platonism and the dying/rising savior god cults, and who engage heavily in scripture study and the practice of midrash, who finally have the mystery of the Christ "revealed" to them in the course of their studies.

The Roman practice of crucifixion suggests to the midrashers that scripture verses about "hanging on a tree" are references to the manner in which the Christ was killed by the demons in the sublunar realm.

These Jews begin preaching and teaching and gathering converts among other Jews.

The Pharisee Paul encounters Jewish Christians and, although he persecutes the sect at first, later has a spiritual epiphany of some sort and converts himself.

And so on!

Gawen

Told you I forgot some... ...Not really. I knew there was a great deal (what you posted) inbetween. Even though you filled in the blanks, my third set remains the same...There was no HJ. Movement begins anyway. Paul begins.

What I sometimes forget is this is not a conspiracy theory written in a month by a bunch of zealots. This whole argument took years to complete. The whole thing mindboggles me.

Another thing I sometimes forget is to remember the times of 200BCE-200 CE. and what it must have been like living there. People back then were not stupid, just superstitious.

But what really really mindboggles me...how anyone, whether they believe in HJ or MJ...can believe in Christianity anyway. That's faith for you.

graymouser

Hmm...this makes Paul's 1 Cor 1:23 "but we preach Christ crucified..." very interesting. If Christianity started out without the crucifixion, and Paul added it in, specifying Christ crucified would be emphasizing the doctrinal uniqueness of Paul's sect. That would certainly be a bit of a monkey wrench to modern Christian belief...

-Wayne

Gregg

Yeah, I think that's why a lot of folks have trouble taking this seriously, even atheists and agnostics. They insist there HAD to be SOME historical figure back there somewhere. But why? History is replete with examples of ideas taking on lives of their own. History is replete with millions and millions of individual examples of people believing religious ideas without a shred of evidence. If they could believe in an invisible god, then why couldn't they believe that this god projected some sort of aspect of himself, also invisible, that communicated with humankind? If they believed in gods scheming, fighting, feasting, and fornicating (even with human beings), why couldn't they believe in a god in the heavenly realm eating a sacred meal "at night" ? If they believed in gods who were killed and resurrected, gods who nobody today argues must have been real people, then what's one more dying/rising savior god?

Edited to add: The answer, of course, is the gospels. None of the other mystery cults developed anything comparable. Since the gospels contain some people we know really existed (i.e. Pilate, even though he acts nothing like we would expect him to, given what we know about him), and got some geographical stuff right (got plenty wrong too), it means there must have been a real person back there--even though nobody can seem to find him, and the whole Passion drama can be reconstructed from OT passages, and even Christian apologists admitted the Gospels were "just stories," and...

capnkirk

Thank you, Gawen!! Thank you, Gregg!!

Gregg,

Thank you for offering a macroview synopsis of Doherty's integration of all the minutae. While I have "read" the whole of The Jesus Puzzle, some significant parts of his larger context unification have obviously escaped me. That, presumably, is the difference between reading him and seriously studying him.

Gawen,

Thank you for bringing this to a head. I think that as a result of your effort, a lot of the talking past each other so evident earlier in this thread will cease.


________________________________
Enterprise...OUT

Amaleq13

Also relevant, I think, is the suffering of Isaiah's Suffering Servant and the humiliation/torment of the Just Man in the personified Wisdom traditions.

GakuseiDon

Is the expression "brother of the Lord" used by any Jewish writers of the time? Or is it unique to Paul? It seems strange that Paul would be the only one to use it, if it has generic meaning.

Why do you take it as an interpolation?

Where does Paul get it from then? From Scripture? Or are you saying he was having visions of God as well as Christ? Is there evidence of this?

GakuseiDon

How many examples are there of a historical person who, over a period of 50 years or so, gets a lot of myths associated with him?

Now, how many examples are there of a non-historical person who, over a period of 50 years or so, becomes considered as historical?

Now apply Occam's Razor, cut, and serve.

spin

Not that I know of. The thing I attempted to clarify is that you cannot assume that a phrase is transparent for you, allowing you to read what you are familiar with into it. That's why I asked what the name Ahijah signified. No-one in their right mind would claim that the namer intended that the receiver of the name was the brother of YHWH. So, what does it mean? What does "brother of the lord" mean -- and how do you know?

Who else have you got writing in the context that Paul found himself in? Besides, there are lots of brothers that crop up in Pauline writings. What's strange about a "brethren of the lord"?


Re: 1 Cor 6:14

You need to read in context. First, note what I said in my previous post about *6:13*, then check out the passage, assuming that Paul is trying to make sense and not confuse his readers by jumping meaning of a key phrase in mid passage.


Re: 1 Cor 7:12

You need to read in context. Paul lays down his opinions on social issues, then adds 7:10. Now compare that with 7:12.


spin

Gawen

*opening my communicator*
Capnkirk,
The Federation Prime Directive of Non-Interference applies to us. Well, I'm tired of studying this primitive culture...*pointing over my shoulder at those Fundies*...If Gregg's with me...two to beam up... May be a few more coming as well...time for some R&R.

Gawen out


((told y'all I was a trekkie... ))