Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Kapyong · 04-09-2012, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

(Even if we accept that Paul's references are not to a physical being, it is very difficult to view them as references to a solely mythical being—from 'not necessarily physical' to 'most certainly and only mythical'; it's a pretty big leap.)
Jon

Paul's Christ was a spiritual being who existed in heaven.
NOT a fictional being, which is what you seem to take mythical as meaning.

Paul's Christ was a real spiritual being,
G.Mark's Christ was fictional/allegorical
Later Christ was historical, because someone came to believe G.Mark's story.

That's the evolution I see.

K.

Kapyong · 04-09-2012, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmmaZunz

Hi Jon.

There are a number of mythical Jesus texts: Ascension of Isaiah, Revelation, Epistle to the Hebrews all talk about a spiritual Christ figure with no historical description.

Gday,

I think 'mythical' and 'spiritual' are completely different concepts,
but are getting confused here.

K

EmmaZunz · 04-09-2012, 03:56 PM

OK that's fair.

I think it's best to use "Spirit Jesus/Christ" for the heavenly figure, and "Mythical Jesus" to mean fictional, pseudo-historical Jesus, even though I didn't do that in the line you quote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmmaZunz

Hi Jon.

There are a number of mythical Jesus texts: Ascension of Isaiah, Revelation, Epistle to the Hebrews all talk about a spiritual Christ figure with no historical description.

Gday,

I think 'mythical' and 'spiritual' are completely different concepts,
but are getting confused here.

K

aa5874 · 04-09-2012, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Paul's Christ was a spiritual being who existed in heaven.
NOT a fictional being, which is what you seem to take mythical as meaning.

Paul's Christ was a real spiritual being,
G.Mark's Christ was fictional/allegorical
Later Christ was historical, because someone came to believe G.Mark's story.

That's the evolution I see.

K.

Your statement is erroneous. gMark's Jesus was DIVINE--non-historical--and was called the Son of God who walked on water and Transfigured.

gMark's Jesus does NOT fit the description of an Historical Jesus.

Further, The Pauline character PLACED himself LAST to SEE Jesus. See 1 Cor. 15.

The Pauline writer claimed he PERSECUTED the Faith so there were people who BELIEVED a Jesus story was before Paul preached the Faith.

The Pauline writer claimed there were people in Christ before him.

The Pauline writer claimed there were Churches in Christ who did NOT even know of him.

The Pauline writer claimed that there was written Scriptures that Jesus died for OUR Sins.

It MUST be noted that the EARLIEST gospel of the Codices, gMark, does NOT state Jesus died for OUR SINS.

gMark's Jesus is NOT a Sacrifice.

The LATER Gospel gJohn contains a Sacrificed Jesus.

The Jesus story of a DIVINE Jesus--the Son of God in gMark--was BEFORE Paul wrote the gospel he RECEIVED FROM THE RESURRECTED Jesus.

EmmaZunz · 04-09-2012, 04:07 PM

I should also say, possibly the best evidence for the transition is the interpolation of HJ into the spirit-Jesus (SJ?) of Ascension of Isaiah.

In that document, you see a complete theology of the Spirit Jesus into which HJ has been fairly crudely and incompatibly inserted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmmaZunz

I'm not entirely certain what you mean Toto, but EH definitely doesn't believe all evidence of the MJ/HJ transition is lost.

He thinks Ignatius indicates it at Trallians 9.

Stop your ears, therefore, when any one speaks to you at variance with Jesus Christ, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly born, and did eat and drink. He was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate; He was truly crucified, and [truly] died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. He was also truly raised from the dead, His Father quickening Him, even as after the same manner His Father will so raise up us who believe in Him by Christ Jesus, apart from whom we do not possess the true life.

It's not entirely clear Ignatius is talking about mythicism, as he goes on to say this about docetists in Trallians 10:

But if, as some that are without God, that is, the unbelieving, say, that He only seemed to suffer (they themselves only seeming to exist), then why am I in bonds? Why do I long to be exposed to the wild beasts? Do I therefore die in vain? Am I not then guilty of falsehood against [the cross of] the Lord?

Possibly Ignatius first establishes historicity, and then goes on to tackle docetism, as two separate issues. Otherwise why make the points in chap. 9 that even docetists agreed with in their own way?

Also at some places in the non-Pauline epistles like 1 John 4:2-3:

every spirit that confesses that JC has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God.

Now is that anti-mythicism or anti-docetism?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Doherty also believes that all of the documentation on this tension point has been lost - either destroyed or just lost.

GakuseiDon · 04-09-2012, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmmaZunz

A hypothesis: docetism was how some original mythicist Xians responded to the new historicist claims they were hearing.

Some would have denied HJ (cf. Trallians). Some would have accepted HJ but minimised his human side (non-Gnostic docetists). Some would have zealously adopted HJ - the Gospel tradition is nothing if not a great meme ("mainstream").

When mythicism takes root, there's going to be a lot of work needing to be done on topics like this.

Paul seems to think that Jesus came in the flesh, so where would you put him in this trajectory?

EmmaZunz · 04-09-2012, 05:16 PM

No, Jesus had a sort of flesh in the heavens that was like ours but not quite the same.

Paul talks a lot about flesh before and after resurrection, but he never says, "Jesus had flesh like us" or "Jesus ate and drank after his resurrection". It's all very philosophical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmmaZunz

A hypothesis: docetism was how some original mythicist Xians responded to the new historicist claims they were hearing.

Some would have denied HJ (cf. Trallians). Some would have accepted HJ but minimised his human side (non-Gnostic docetists). Some would have zealously adopted HJ - the Gospel tradition is nothing if not a great meme ("mainstream").

When mythicism takes root, there's going to be a lot of work needing to be done on topics like this.

Paul seems to think that Jesus came in the flesh, so where would you put him in this trajectory?

GakuseiDon · 04-09-2012, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmmaZunz

No, Jesus had a sort of flesh in the heavens that was like ours but not quite the same.

Paul talks a lot about flesh before and after resurrection, but he never says, "Jesus had flesh like us" or "Jesus ate and drank after his resurrection". It's all very philosophical.

Why then did the docetist Christians deny that Christ came in the flesh? From a trajectory stand-point, how did they go from "Jesus with a sort of flesh in the heavens" to "Jesus with no flesh on the ground" to "Jesus with flesh on the ground"?

aa5874 · 04-09-2012, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

...Paul seems to think that Jesus came in the flesh, so where would you put him in this trajectory?

The Pauline writer claimed Jesus was NOT human and that he did NOT get his gospel from a human being so where would you put him in this trjectory???

The Pauline Jesus was Divine--non-historical--God Incarnate, God's Son in the Flesh.

No amount of special pleading can help you.

1 Corinthians 15:45-47 KJV

Quote:

And so it is written , The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

maryhelena · 04-10-2012, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

<snip>
Once the analysis is done (and I don't expect anyone to do it here), we would either find that all literature falls into this category (which would be the end of Doherty's mythicist theory, though GA Wells' theory would survive quite nicely) or we would be able to determine which ones were pure ahistoricists and which were "limited" historicists (thus supporting Doherty's theory).

Doherty's theory re a crucified JC in a spiritual realm could not be negated even if there was a historical gospel JC. Why? Moral issues come into play here. Unless you want to have Christianity founded upon a theology of flesh and blood crucifixion, of flesh and blood sacrifice as having supreme value - then one has to consider an alternative scenario which enables 'Paul' to give 'salvation' potential to a crucifixion. Sure, Doherty's sub-lunar scenario is questionable - but it's a spiritual, non-earthly, non-flesh and blood 'crucifixion', that is relevant for 'salvation' potential.

I'm not really interested in the moral issues in this. My concern is Doherty distorting ancient Christian and pagan beliefs to get them to fit his theories. If his theories encouraged people to investigate the ancient world, that would be a positive. Even Acharya S can be a positive in that sense.

I would suggest that without considering moral issues re early christian origins, that you will end up with a distorted picture.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.